NRLF 
 
LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 University of California. 
 
 RECEIVED BY EXCHANGE 
 
 Class 
 
m.' 
 
 THE HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTA- 
 MENT CANON IN THE SYRIAN 
 CHURCH 
 
 BY 
 
 JULIUS A. BEWER 
 
 SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR 
 
 THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
 
 IN THE 
 
 FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 
 
 CHICAGO 
 
 tTbe TUniverditi? of Cbtcago pxcM 
 
 1 900 
 
THE HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTA- 
 MENT CANON IN THE SYRIAN 
 CHURCH 
 
 BY 
 
 JULIUS A. BEWER 
 
 SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR 
 
 THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
 
 IN THE 
 
 FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 
 
 CHICAGO 
 
 Sbe 'tSXnivetBit^ ot Gblcago pcees 
 
 1 900 
 
C^A, 
 
 D'^ 
 
 Aa 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The study of the relation of the various documents which form the 
 material of the dissertation has something fascinating, when the 
 religious impulses are seen at work. The Syrians were no great 
 literary people, but they were aglow for Christ. The throbbing of 
 their passionate love for the Savior, which distinguishes them later on, 
 may be felt here already in the various attempts which they made to 
 translate his gospel into their own language. This recompenses us in a 
 certain sense for the scanty information which we have of the beginning 
 of Christianity in Syria. Three translations of the gospels, made at 
 pretty nearly the same time, evidence the strength of the Christian 
 life at the very beginning. It is important that this religious element 
 be not overlooked. 
 
 I count myself happy that my teacher. Professor Gottheil, has 
 allowed me to take this subject for my dissertation, and that he has 
 always directed my attention to matters of special interest for a theo- 
 logical student. It is due to this that I could combine my theological 
 with my oriental studies. I want to thank him most heartily for his 
 teaching and the kind interest he has always taken in my work. 
 
 I am impelled also to thank my teacher, Professor McGiffert. To 
 him I owe my training in historical criticism ; he suggested the theme 
 to me, and in his seminar the thesis was first read. His kind interest 
 has never been wanting. 
 
 This dissertation was finished in the spring of last year; therefore 
 the newer publications could not be consulted. They would, however, 
 have modified none of the results. 
 
 JULIUS A. BEWER. 
 Basle, Switzerland, 
 January, 1 900. 
 
 207773 
 
THE HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON IN 
 THE SYRIAN CHURCH. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 Since the publication of Theodor Zahn's monumental work, Die 
 Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, a flood of light has been 
 thrown on the history of the New Testament canon in the Syrian 
 church by the discovery of the Codex Syrus Sinaiticus, which modifies 
 the course of the history a good deal. But though this famous codex 
 has been carefully studied and compared with the other documents, 
 though its place in the genealogy of the text has been the subject of 
 controversy, nobody has as yet undertaken a reconstruction of the 
 history of the New Testament canon in the Syrian church. It is this 
 that I should like to attempt in this study. But before we can recon- 
 struct the history, many points have to be considered, for there is lack 
 of unanimity among scholars in regard to almost all the questions at 
 issue. 
 
 Right at the outset it is best to define clearly what belongs to the 
 subject and what not. I give, therefore, here a statement of the ques- 
 tions which will be treated. The cardinal point is : only thai which 
 bears directly on the history of the canon will be considered. Everything 
 else, however valuable in itself, will be omitted. Thus it is not neces- 
 sary for our purpose, e. g., to compare the Syrus Sinaiticus, the Cureto- 
 nianus, and Peshitta with the Palestinian Syriac, nor to compare the 
 later revision, the Philoxenian and the Heraclian, with the Peshitta. 
 The history of the text as such is different from the history of the 
 canon. The problems to be considered are : 
 
 i. As regards the gospels : 
 
 1. What is the relation of Syrus Sinaiticus (= Ss) to Syrus Curetonianus 
 (=Sc)? 
 
 2. What is the relation of Ss and Sc to the Peshitta {— P) ? 
 
 3. What is the relation of Ss, Sc, and P to the Greek ? 
 
 4. What is the relation of Ss, Sc, and P to Tatian's Diatessaron {— T) ? 
 
 5. Which gospel did Aphraates (= A) use, the gospel harmony or the 
 separate gospels, or both ? 
 
 6. Which did Ephraim (= E) use ? 
 
 T 
 
2 NEW TESTAMENT CANON IN SYRIAN CHURCH 
 
 ii. As regards the Acts and epistles : 
 
 1. What does the Doctrina Addai say about them ? 
 
 2. Does Aphraates use all of them ? 
 
 3. Are all the epistles in the Peshitta ? 
 
 4. What is the relation of the text of the epistles in Aphraates to that of 
 P? 
 
 5. What that of Ephraim ? 
 
 6. Does Ephraim use all the books of the New Testament ? 
 
 iii. As regards canonicity : 
 
 1. What light does the Doctrina Addai shed on this question ? 
 
 2. Did Aphraates have a canon ? 
 
 3. If so, on what principle was it based ? 
 
 When these questions are answered, we are ready to attempt the 
 reconstruction of the entire history. 
 
 The sources are not many. The lack of historical references makes 
 the history all the more complicated. The sources are: (i) the 
 Codex Syrus Sinaiticus (=Ss);' (2) the Codex Syrus Curetonianus 
 (=Sc);' (3) the Peshitta (=P);' (4) the Diatessaron of Tatian 
 (=T);' (5) the homilies of Aphraates (=A);3 (6) the works of 
 Ephraim (=E);2 (7) references to Tatian and the Diatessaron in the 
 church fathers; 4 (8) the Doctrina Addai. ^ 
 
 ' Cf. E. Nestle, " Die syrischen Bibeliibersetzungen," in Real-Encyclopddie fiir 
 protestanthche Theologie tind Kirche (= RE), 3. Aufl., Vol. Ill, 1897. 
 
 • Cf. A. ClASCA, Tatiani Evangeliorum harmoniae arabice .... edidit, Roma, 
 1888. — G. MOESINGER, Evangelii concordantis expositio facta a sancto Ephraemo, 
 Venezia, 1896. — Theo. Zahn, Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen 
 Kanons tind der altkirchlichen Literahir. I. Theil: Tatian'' s Diatessaron, Erlangen, 
 1881 — a famous reconstruction of the lost gospel harmony. See also Zahn's article, 
 " Zur Geschichte von Tatian's Diatessaron im Abendland," Neue kirchl. Zeitschr., 
 1894, No. 2. — J. Hamlyn Hill, The Earliest Life of Christ ever Compiled from the 
 Four Gospels, being the Diatessaron of Tatian, Edinburgh, 1894. — J. Rendel Harris, 
 7 he Diatessaron of Tatian. A Preliminary Study, London, 1890, and "The 
 Diatessaron," Contempo7-ary Review, August, 1895, in answer to R. W. Cassels, " The 
 Diatessaron of Tatian," A^ineteenth Century, Apn\, 1895. — S. Hemphill, The Dia- 
 tessaron of Tatian, London and Dublin, 1888. — Also the articles of J. M. Fuller in 
 the Dictionary of Christian Biography and of Adolf Harnack in the Encyclopedia 
 Britannic a. 
 
 3 Cf. NESTLE in RE, s. v. 
 
 ■» See J. Rendel Harris and Hill as quoted in footnote 2. 
 
 sSee Cureton, Ancient Syriac Documents, 1864. — Geo. Phillips in his 
 standard edition, 1876. — LiPSlus, "Zur edessenischen Abgar-Sage," Jahrb.f protest. 
 Theologie, 1 880, pp. 187 f., and on "Thaddseus," in the Dictionary of Christian Biog- 
 raphy. 
 
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGA TIONS 3 
 
 PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS. 
 1. THE GOSPELS. 
 
 As we should expect in any newly founded Christian church, the 
 gospels were the first to be translated into Syriac. Having heard of 
 Jesus Christ in the sermons preached by the missionaries, the Syrian 
 Christians had surrendered themselves to him. An ardent longing to 
 learn more of him than the sermons of these evangelists could give 
 them must soon have taken hold of them. A translation of his works 
 and words, as they had already been written down, must soon have 
 been made. Whether Tatian was one of the early missionaries, or 
 even the founder of Christianity, in Syria, we do not know. It is 
 extremely doubtful. If he had been, it would be very strange that not 
 even the slightest tradition concerning it has come down to us. We 
 know that he has combined and interwoven the gospels in Syriac in 
 his Diatessaron ; we know that this gospel harmony was widely used in 
 Syria ; but we do not know that he was the first to give the Syrians 
 Christianity and the translation of the Christian documents. Granted 
 that a translation of the gospels was made early after the establishment 
 of Christianity, we are at once confronted by the question : Which was 
 the earlier work, the translation of the four separate gospels or the 
 Diatessaron ? We have, namely, on the one hand, a gospel harmony, 
 and, on the other, the four gospels given us in the Syrus Sinaiticus, 
 Curetonianus, and the Peshitta. That the contrast between the two 
 was felt in Syria is seen from the title of the separate gospels, .a-kiik^o] 
 ) >. •,■ =1 v ^ , /. e., "the gospel of the separated." But this title cannot be 
 used as an argument for the later origin of Ss and Sc than T, because 
 we do not know whether the original translator has used it, or whether 
 it was not added by the later scribe who wrote when the distinction 
 between the separate gospels and the Diatessaron was marked, viz., in 
 the fourth century. There is no external evidence which can be 
 brought to bear on this question of priority. It is true, we know from 
 the Doctrina Addai, Aphraates, and Ephraim that the Diatessaron was 
 widely used, but that does not mean that it was on that account the 
 earliest text. The decision rests then, unfortunately enough, exclusively 
 on internal evidence. We must examine the texts themselves, and 
 there it is necessary to see the relation (i) of Ss to Sc, (2) of Ss and 
 Sc to P, (3) of all three to the Greek, and (4) to T. 
 
 /. The Relation of Ss to Sc. 
 The order of the gospels is different in the two codices. Ss has the 
 order (=P): Matt., Mark, Luke, John; Sc has: Matt., Mark, John, 
 
4 NEW TESTAMENT CANON IN SYRIAN CHURCH 
 
 Luke. I cannot help feeling that Sc's order seems to be older than 
 that of Ss. The order varied in the Syrian church at first, which is seen 
 also from D (Codex Bezge), which is so closely related to the Syriac New 
 Testament. D has : Matt., John, Luke, Mark.* The Old Syriac may, 
 therefore, have had the order of Sc. But, on the whole, the order has 
 very little voice in the decision. It will be seen in the course of this 
 investigation that Ss has a different Greek original from Sc. It is 
 unreasonable to suppose that the translators changed the order of the 
 gospels. They translated in the order which they found in the Greek 
 MS. used by them. All that can be inferred is that the Greek 
 original of Ss had the order: Matt., Mark, Luke, John, while the Greek 
 original of Sc had : Matt., Mark, John, Luke. It would be hazardous 
 to affirm that a Greek MS. with the order Matt., Mark, John, Luke is 
 older than one with the order Matt., Mark, Luke, John, if no other 
 evidence were forthcoming. 
 
 Now, an examination of the two codices shows at once that they are 
 related to each other. They are not altogether independent of each 
 other, as was at once seen by Professor Bensly and F. C. Burkitt, when 
 Mrs. Lewis showed them some photographed specimens of the Sinaitic 
 codex.' This has not been questioned since. Nestle, Wellhausen, Holz- 
 hey, etc., all agree in saying that the two codices stand in a certain 
 relation to each other. What that relation is we shall see later on. It 
 is usually thought, e. g., by Wellhausen and Holzhey, that Sc is simply 
 a recension of Ss ; the revisor adding those parts which were omitted 
 by Ss and correcting translations which did not correspond exactly to 
 the Greek, his purpose being to bring this translation into a more inti- 
 mate harmony with the Greek. Whether this position is tenable or 
 not will appear as we go on. At all events, so much is certain, that 
 the two codices stand in a close relation to each other. 
 
 Again, it is generally accepted that both Ss and Sc are translations 
 from the Greek. Cureton showed this long ago for the gospels which 
 are named after him, in the preface to his edition (1858). If there could 
 have been any doubt whether this was so, it was removed by the recon- 
 struction of the Greek text which underlay the Syriac translation by 
 J. R. Crowfoot, 1 87 1, and Friedrich Baethgen, 1885. 
 
 For the Sinaiticus no such reconstruction of the original Greek has 
 been made as yet, though Adalbert Merx tells us that he began to 
 
 * Cf. Carl Holzhey, Der neuentdeckie Codex Syrus Sinaiticus untersucht (Miin- 
 chen, 1896), p. 45. 
 
 ^ The Four Gospels in Syriac, p. v. 
 
PRELIM IN A RY IN VES TIG A TIONS 5 
 
 translate Matthew into Greek, abandoning, however, this plan to bring 
 out his German translation. The question whether Ss is a translation 
 from the Greek is more important than might appear at first glance. 
 If it can be proved that it is from a Greek original, then its relation to 
 the Western Text is clearer ; it cannot be that it is a translation from the 
 old Latin, as I inclined to think for a time,* nor can any other theory 
 hold good. 
 
 Fortunately there are some indications which place it beyond doubt 
 that the underlying text of Ss is Greek : 
 
 1. The version retains Greek words and writes them simply in 
 Syriac form: John ii : i8, o-raSiov ; ti 144, etc., o-ovSa/aiof ; 11 : 54, 
 irapprjcria ; 12:3, Xirpa, vapSos, ttio-tikos ; 6:13, k6<j>lvo<; ; 12:6, etc., 
 yXwaaoKO/xov ; 14: 16, etc.. irapa.KXr)TO<; ; 18:3, etc., (nreLpa, A.a/H7ras ; 
 18 : 28, etc., rjy^ixtov. Matt. 8 : 5, etc., ;(iXt'ap;)(OS ; 8 : 9, aTpaTL(x)Tt]<> ; 12:41, 
 Ktijpvyfia. Mark 15:44, etc., KevTvpitov. Luke 13:34, etc., trpaiTiapiov ; 
 23: 53. apiafxa." 
 
 2. There are incorrect translations in Ss which can be explained only 
 on the assumption that a Greek MS. was used": Matt. 10 : 40, oAAots 
 instead of the correct dAX' oTs ; 13 : 48, eis ayaOd for eis ayy>; (or dyycTu). 
 Luke 4 : 30, Kpcp-aaai for Kp-qp-vtaai ; 19:4, (tvkos fxoipia'i for avKop-opea ; 
 21 : 46, iv (TToats for iv aToAats. John 7 : 35, anepixa [cnropd) for SuKnropd. 
 
 3. There is at least one interpretatory phrase which shows as clearly 
 as possible that Ss used a Greek original : John i : 42, "Cephas, which 
 is being interpreted wfo Greek, Peter." 
 
 These arguments are conclusive. It would not be difficult, how- 
 ever, to point out Greek constructions in the Syriac, if it were neces- 
 sary. It is already plain that both codices are based on a Greek 
 original. 
 
 But now, though Ss and Sc are closely related to each other, and 
 though they are translations from the Greek, yet Sc is not merely a 
 recension of Ss, or 7>ue versa, nor is the Greek text underlying Ss the 
 same as that which Sc used. 
 
 To keep the two points distinct, we will prove each one separately. 
 
 * Cf. the interesting colophon in the MS. of the fifth century described by Gwil- 
 liam in Siudia Biblica, 1 : " Finished is the holy gospel, the preaching of Mark the 
 evangelist, which he spake in Roman, in the city of Rome." 
 
 'For other examples see Holzhey, pp. 10, 11. 
 
 ''' Cf. Wellhausen, " Der syrische Evangelienpalimpsest vom Sinai," Nachr. v. 
 d. Kgl. Ges. d. Wis. z. Gott., Phil.-hist. CI., 1895, Heft I ; and especially C. Holzhey, 
 pp. 10, II. 
 
6 NEW TESTAMENT CANON IN SYRIAN CHURCH 
 
 First, then, Sc is not a mere recension of Ss. The texts have, in 
 spite of their close alliance, so many differences that it is altogether 
 improbable that the one is simply a recension of the other, occasioned 
 by the desire of Sc's author to bring the Syriac text more closely into 
 harmony with the Greek, correcting and adding the omissions of Ss 
 and omitting the occasional small additions which Ss has allowed itself 
 to make. 
 
 Though this theory is very attractive, and as set forth, for instance, 
 by Holzhey, seemingly irresistible, because of its forceful logic and its 
 historical probability, it is not warranted by the facts. If it were a 
 mere recension, we should not find the many differences in passages 
 where the Greek is evidently the same in both versions. There are 
 grammatical, lexical, and material differences in such numbers — as 
 will be shown — that it is impossible to account for them by the 
 above theory. 
 
 i. Grammatical differences: i. Different tenses. — (a) Perfect for 
 imperfect: Matt. 11:27; 12:25; 17:20; 18:15; 22:24. 
 Luke 8 : 2, 35 ; 11:7,18; 14:1,29. John 6 : 26. — (^) Perfect 
 forparticiple : Matt. 13:3; 15 : 5 ; 19 : 17, 21 ; 21 : 38 ; 22 : 23. 
 Luke 7 : 44, 47; 8:4, 13, 49; 9 : 41, 45 ; 10 : 26; 11 : 28; 
 17:6, 12; 18:15; 22: 60; 23:1 4, 40, 42 ; 24 : 18. John 6 : 36, 
 63; 7:26, 39, 46, 47, 48. — {c) Perfect for infinitive: Matt. 
 4:17; 5:17; 16:12. Luke 10 : 40. John 7 : 44. — (</) Imper- 
 fect for participle: Matt. 5:46; 10:39; 12:33; 20:13,18, 
 23; 21 :23. Luke 11:4, 10; 13 :25; 17 : 21 ; 18 : 5, 7, 16, 17 ; 
 
 21 : 26. John 7 : 36. — (<?) Imperfect for infinitive: Matt. 2 : 22 ; 
 3:15; 5:42; 13:9' 17-43; 14:19; 18:4; 21:46. Luke 
 8:32; 9:2; 11:5; 17:31. John 7 :44.— (/) Jussive for 
 imperative : Matt. 5 : 43^ Luke 9 : 5. — {g) Different formation 
 of imperative : Ss forms the imperative of '^i) and ]z] mostly 
 (not always, cf. Matt. 4:10; 6:31) with the first ] , Sc never. 
 Ss = '\i|,|4; Sc = '^i,1z. Matt. 2:19; 5:41; 11:28; 
 
 22 : 4. Luke 9 : 59 ; 10:3; 16:2. 
 
 2. Different conjugations.— (a) Ettafal for Ethpeel and Eth- 
 paal:" Matt. 1:23; 2:3; 11:7; 12:20; 13:53; 23:12. 
 Luke 1 1 : 50, 51; 18:14; 20:18. John 5 : 7. — {b) Ethp. for 
 Peal: Matt. 1:21, 23; 5:13, 22; 17:20. Luke 10:34; 
 11:42', 46; 12:32; 21:26; 24:4. John 3:8; 6:33; 
 
 " Cf. NOLDEKE, § 159. 
 
PRELIM IN A R V INVES TIG A TIONS 7 
 
 14:21. — {c) Ethp. for Peal participle passive: Matt. 4:14; 
 18 : 17. Luke 10 : 20. John 3:27. 
 ii. Lexical differences : i. Verbs. — I counted more than no differ- 
 ences in verbs in the two codices, and I am sure that there are 
 still more. These are evenly distributed over the gospels — 
 about 86 in Matt., 32 in Luke, 22 in John. 
 
 2. Nouns. — I catalogued about 123 differences in nouns, and there 
 are rather more than less — 55 in Matt., 57 in Luke, 11 in John. 
 There are also nouns of the same stem, but of different forma- 
 tion, used — 4 in Matt, and 3 in Luke. 
 
 3. Adjectives. — There are naturally not so many, but enough ; e.g. : 
 Matt.3:ii; 13:48; 14:3°' 3^ ; 15:32; 22:38; 23:6; 
 Luke 7: 43; 11:46; 12:7; 14:20; 15:7; 17:15; 19:18; 
 20 : 30. John 3 : 26. 
 
 4. Adverbial expressions.^ — -Matt. 3:16; 13:5; 14:27,31. Luke 
 12:36; 17:7; 15:8; 24:25. John 5: 9, etc. 
 
 5. Prepositions. — John 3:21, 24, 29, 31, 34 ; 4 : 2, 9, 18 ; 
 6:33; 7:1. Matt. 1:22; 2:3, 12; 4:14; 8:17; 
 12:17; 15:1; 17:24; 20:20. Luke 2 : 7 ; 12:16; 
 22 : 45 ; etc., etc. 
 
 6. Particles. — Matt. 1:24; 2:2; 4:4; 6:1, 2, 6, 7; 
 Luke 12: 37; 17:18, 37; 20:17; 22:70; 22:29; 
 John I : 28, 38, 39 ; 11:37; etc., etc. 
 
 iii. Different phrases and constructions : Matt. 1:16, 25; 4:6, 21,22, 
 24,25; 5:2; 13:4; 14:4; 17:15; 18:3,8; 19:22; 22:25, 
 28,30. Luke 8: 4, 31; 9:10; 18:15; 19:34, 39; 20:16. 
 John 4: 24; 5:19; 6:9; etc., etc. Many other passages could 
 be cited. 
 In considering these grammatical, lexical, and material differences, 
 one must not leave out of account that many chapters cannot be com- 
 pared because they are wanting in the one or the other, or in both; 
 so the entire gospel of Luke and whole chapters of the other gospels. 
 A pretty accurate idea of how greatly the two texts differ may be 
 got by looking through Bonus' careful collation, which fills a consid- 
 erable volume, and it will be noticed that they are not only numerous, 
 but important differences." 
 
 "Orthographical differences have very little to do with the argument; one could 
 place alongside of Holzhey's orthographical lists others which would prove the con- 
 trary. 
 
 5: 
 
 I3i 
 
 1 1 ; 
 
 18: 
 
 15 
 
 : I , 
 
 13 : 
 
 54 
 
 23 
 
 ■l 
 
8 NEIV TESTAMENT CANON IN SYRIAN CHURCH 
 
 If the one is simply a recension of the other, one asks in vain why 
 there should be so many variations, which dispose one at times to 
 think that the two texts are not at all related to each other.'^ They can- 
 not be explained on the ground of a different dialect, so that the 
 author had to adjust the translation to the language which the people 
 of that section of Syria spoke in which he lived ; because the expres- 
 sion which the author of Sc substituted for an expression in Ss will 
 occur also in another passage in Ss. There is no system in the variations 
 which would lead one to suspect simple dialectical differences. It is 
 true, some differences might be explained in that way, e.g., - "nml , 
 ''^^-Q-^ , but even that would be difficult, because the one verb is not 
 confined to either text — the substitution is not consistently carried 
 out. However that may be in single cases, a theory of dialec- 
 tical differences does not do justice to the differences as a whole, 
 though it may explain a few. Nor is it plausible that the author of Sc 
 should have exchanged just as he pleased verbs and nouns and phrases 
 and constructions. That would be a rather too capricious and unscru- 
 pulous procedure. 
 
 Another point, though not of so great importance, is the fact that 
 Sc introduces again Greek words into the text which Ss has already 
 rendered by good Syriac terms; e.g.:^* Matt. 5 : i8, /aoSios ; 14:1, 
 T€Tpapxo'5 ; 14 : 36, crToX.r} ; 18:7, dvdyKrj ; 18 : 10, TrpocrwTrov, Luke 23 : 25, 
 aipcWs. If one looks at this fact without prejudice, it is at least 
 strange that Sc, if it be a mere recension of Ss, should have given up 
 good translations which it found already in Ss, and should have trans- 
 lated them by simple transcription of the respective Greek words. 
 The explanation suggested,'^ that this is due to Sc's endeavor to 
 conform his text more closely to the Greek, even at cost of good 
 Syriac, is, to say the least, artificial. 
 
 Again, the many omissions, as they are called, of Ss and his slight 
 additions might be used as an argument for the proposition that Sc 
 is not merely a recension of Ss. They might be explained in this 
 way : Ss, not intending to give a literal and precise translation, 
 endeavored only to make a good, popular one; in doing so he 
 omitted phrases, clauses, and sometimes whole verses ; in one case an 
 entire section. They were not important for him, gave no new light, 
 and could therefore well be omitted. The result would be only a more 
 forcible and popular translation. In the same way he thought it of 
 
 '3 Cf. Nestle, T/ieoL Lit.-Zeitung, I. c. 
 
 '^HOLZHEV, p. II. 
 
PRELIM IN A RY IN VES TIG A TIONS 9 
 
 little importance to add a word or phrase now and then, if only the 
 text thereby became more readable and plainer. 
 
 Now, when Sc came to revise this text of Ss, he faithfully added 
 those parts which had been omitted by Ss, and struck out those addi- 
 tions which Ss had permitted himself to make. The result of this 
 revision would be a text which was more like the Greek, though per- 
 haps not yet an altogether literal translation, since even Sc's desire 
 was to present a good popular piece of work rather than a slavish 
 imitation of the Greek. 
 
 Were the additions of Sc, filling out those places which Ss omitted, 
 and the omissions of the arbitrary additions of Ss the only things 
 which are different in the two texts, then, of course, this explanation 
 would be correct. But as the case lies, the other differences, grammatical, 
 lexical, and material, are too many ; they alone are sufficient to show 
 that Sc is not merely a recension of Ss. If this is taken into account, 
 the argument from the additions and omissions gains its full weight, and 
 confirms the thesis that Sc is not a mere recension of Ss. 
 
 Many of the material differences find their explanation in the 
 fact that Ss presupposes a different Greek original from Sc's Greek 
 text. 
 
 The proof for this lies not so much in the use of different phrases, 
 as, e. g., in such passages as Matt. 5 : 2, where Ss— rjpx'^To Xiyuv atrrot? ; 
 Sc = KoX avoL$a<i to (xro/xa avTov iSi8a(TK€v avTous Xe'ycov ; but rather in the 
 omissions and additions of Ss. 
 
 First of all it should be noted, in regard to the omissions of Ss, that 
 they are not the work of the arbitrary translator, who has been accused 
 of omitting and adding as he saw fit, if it only made his translation 
 better, more forceful and popular. Now, this is unwarranted by the 
 facts. Ss is more faithful to his text than he has been supposed to be. 
 There are many cases, and those are the most important, where we can 
 put our finger on the same omissions and additions in other MSS. 
 This makes it highly probable, if not certain, that the Greek MS. of 
 Ss did not have the passages omitted in the translation, and had those 
 which we call additions. 
 
 Of course, he would omit passages which are merely explanatory 
 phrases in Greek for words which needed no interpretation for a Syrian. 
 But even in regard to these one may doubt whether they were in the 
 original Greek or not ; e. g. .- 
 
 Matt. 4:18, Tov Acyo/icvov IleT/aov ; 27:33, o ccttiv Kpaviou Tottos A.cyd- 
 /U.CVOS ; 27 : 46, tout' iuTiv ©€€ /xov, ^ee /xou, tva ti /u,£ eyKaTc'AtTres. Mark 3:17, 
 
10 NEW TESTAMENT CANON IN SYRIAN CHURCH 
 
 o i(TTiv Ylol ^povT7]<; ; 7:34, o iariv ^lavoiyO-qri \ 15:34, o 1<ttlv ficdepfjLn- 
 vcvo/xevov 'O ^cos /xov [6 6e6s fiov] cis Tt cyKareAiTres /u.€. John I : 38, o Aeyerai 
 fit6epfir]V€v6ix€vov AtSao-KaXe ; 1:41, o €<tt6v /xeOepiuirjvevofxevov XpicTTO^ ; 4 : 25, 
 6 Xeyo/Acvos X/aio-ros; 9:7, o ipfir/veveTai 'ATrecTTaX^evos ; Ii:i6; 20:24; 
 21 :2, 6 Aeyo/xevos AtSu/Aos ; 20 : 16, o Acyerai AiSao-KaXe. 
 
 In any case, omissions like these are natural ; we expect them. Two 
 such interpretations of Hebrew and Aramaean terms, which were 
 necessary in Greek, but surperfluous in Syriac, have remained in the 
 the text; viz.: Matt, i : 23 " Immanuel, which is interpreted, God with 
 us ;" and John i : 42, "Cephas, which is being interpreted into Greek, 
 Peter." Whether these two passages have been left merely by accident, 
 or whether they go to prove that Ss was so faithful to his original that 
 he would add even such matters as were unimportant or superfluous in 
 a Syriac translation, if they were in the original Greek text, is impos- 
 sible to decide dogmatically. But it is certain that, even if he omitted 
 those passages because he saw that they were superfluous, the omis- 
 sions are entirely natural, and do by no means reflect on the faithful- 
 ness of his translation. He is, indeed, a very faithful translator; he 
 does not omit passages which seem to him unimportant, nor does he 
 add when he likes. We shall see that the most important omissions 
 as well as additions are paralleled in other MSS., especially in those 
 of the western group. In the list which is given below I have taken 
 only the most important omissions and additions, and noted down 
 when the omission was paralleled by one or more MSS., when Westcott 
 and Hort(=W-H) or Tischendorf (= Tisch.) bracketed it or put it on 
 the margin. I have simply noted this, because that implies that there 
 is a good deal of doubt whether the verse or phrase belongs in the 
 text or not. As the basis for the comparison I have used West- 
 cott and Hort's text. Thus, when W-H omit passages which Ss omits 
 also, no notice has been taken of them. This reduces the number of 
 the otherwise very numerous omissions. 
 
 Ss omits Matt, i : 25 (partly), K also ; 4 : 24 partly ;'= 5 : 30, D also ; 5 : 47, 
 K also; 6:5; 9:34, Da K also, W-H bracket; 10:13, rj d^ia, D also; 
 10 : 19, 7r<DS r;, a K, etc., also; 12 :47, W-H margin, Tisch. bracket ; 16:2,3, 
 
 '5 C/. Blass, £vg/. Luc, praefatio, p. Ixxvi : Apud Matt. 4 : 24 absunt ab Syro Lew. 
 verba koX d-n-^XOev 17 olko^ avrov els S\t)v ttjv "Zvplav, turn ibidem /caJ 5aiixovi^oix4vov% 
 Kal <TeK7)VLa^on.ivovs ((cai aiK. et. K om.) Kal Trapa\vTLKovs ; paulloque post (25) pro Kal 
 T)Ko\oijdr]<rav avrf 8x^<" ttoWoI Kri habet idem " et facta magna multitudine " : in 
 quibus omnibus nisi Tatiani licentiam sive alius Syri interpretis mecum agnoscere 
 velis, non invenies e-xplicationem differentiae. Nullane ergo huic testi fides habenda ? 
 
PRELIM IN A R Y INVESTIGA TIONS I I 
 
 W-H bracket ; 21 : 44, VV-H bracket, Tisch. om. ; 22 : 4, to aptcrrov /xou -qroi- 
 /iacra, ot ravpoL fiov Kai ra (TiTtaTa TtOvixtva ; Sc om. only : nai ra cnTLcrTa 
 TeOvfxtva. — Mark 7 : 8, a<^£VTes yap rrjv tvroXrjv tov ®eov, KpareiTe r-qv irapa- 
 ^oviv TUiv avOpwTTOV', 9 : 3> oia yva<f)ev<; ctti tt/? yrj<; ov BwaraL ovtw? AevKavat, 
 X a n om. also ; 9:49, wacra yap Bvaia a\t aXiad-qcreTai, W-H put it on the 
 margin, Tisch. om. ; 10:2, irpoaeXOovre'i ^apLaaioi, D a b K om., brack- 
 eted by W-H ; 10 : 42, o Se Irj(rov<; — 80/couvTcs — Kai ot fieyaXoi awrwi' Kare^ov- 
 auL^ovcnv avTwv ; I I : 8, aXXot 8e 0"Tt/?aSas KOt/'avTCS ck tcuv aypotv \ 12:4, 
 entire verse ; 13:9, BAeTrcTe 8e v/xets cavrows — om. also by Jj^* — Kat a? cruva- 
 ytoyas SaprjaeaOe ; 14 :65, Kat TreptKaAuTrTetv to irpoainirov avTov, D a f om. ; 
 14:42, Kat -q^-q oif/La<; yevofJievrj? CTrct r]v irapauKtvq, o (.aTi npo . . . ; l6:8, 
 aTro Tou fivrjfiuov. et;^e 8e avTas rpo/xos Kai CKo-Tao-is ; 16:9-20, om. J^ , B. — 
 Luke 6:40, KaTripTi(Tp.(.vo<i Se Tras eo^Tat ws o StSatTKaAos avTou, FA* 48*" om.; 
 
 7 : 7i 810 ov8c f.fi.avTov rj^ioio-a Trpos o-e cA^civ, D 63, 240, 244, a b c e ff ° * om. ; 
 
 8 : 43, ijiTts £is larpovs Trpocravakwcracra oXov tov jSiov ; D: t/v ovSe ets ta^vcv 
 depairevaai — om. the rest; Ss : ouk tcr^uo-ev a7r' ovScvos ^cpaTrev^T^vai ; 
 9:54, a>5 /cat HXeta? tiroLrjcrev, W-H margin, Tisch. om. ; 9:55, 56. Kai 
 ciTrcv, ovK oi8aT£ TTotou TTveiJ/jtaTos CCTTC to o-ojo-at, W-H on margin, Tisch. 
 om. ; 10:41, 42, /X£ptp.m9 Kat dopvjial^rj Trept TroWa, oXiytov 8e €(ttiv 
 Xpeta rj £vos, W-H ^ \ a b e £f* om., D also except doavfSalrj ; i i : 1 1, apTOv, 
 p.rf XlOov £7rt 8a)o-£t avTou, W-H margin ; 1 1 : 36, oXov — p.r} €)(0V tl /iX£pos — 
 £aTat <^wT£tvov oAov, D a b e ff ^, Sc om. also ;'* 11: 53, Kat a7roo-TO/xaTt^£tv 
 auTov 7r€pt7rA£tovoji', W-H margin; 11 : 54, e;'£8p£i;ovT£s avTov drjptvaai Tt tK 
 (TTOfJMTO^ avTov, W-H ^ ^; D: a<f>opp.r)V Ttva Xa^av avrov, om. £i'£8pevovT£s ; 
 Sc. also ; 12 :g, om. e ; 12:39, ^ypy}yopr]<T€.v av, W-H ^ ^ margin simply: 
 OVK av, so Tisch. in text; 14:27, om. M*Rr al. mu. ; 16:7, Kat A£y£t auTu» 
 Af^at (TOV TO ypafx/JM; 16: 18, avro av8pos, D om. ; 19:25, D 69, etc., Sc om. ; 
 19 : 33, £t7rov 01 KvpioL avTOv irpos auTovs Tt Av£T£ toi' TTOiXov, Sc also ; 20 : 36, 
 Ktti vtot eia-iv TOV 6eov, W-H ^ ^, some MSS. om. Kat utot ettriv ; 21 : 10, 
 tote €A£y£v auTois, D e 1 a ff* Sc om.; 22:43, 44, bracketed twice by W-H; 
 23:10-12; 23:34a, W-H bracket twice; 23:51, odtos ovk rjv avyKara- 
 TtOei/xevo'i TYj ^ovXr) Kat ty] 7rpa^£t avT<x>v ; 24:42, Kat aTro p,£Atcro-toti KrjpLOv, 
 W-H margin, Tisch. om. ; 24:52, £ts tov ovpavov — irpoaKwrjaavTo; avTov, 
 W-H bracket, Tisch. om. — John l : 38, ^£ao-ap,£vo5 auTous aKoAou^owTas ; 4 : 9, 
 ovar)<; yvvaiKos 2ap,ap€tTt8os ; I 2 : 8, D om. ; 1 3 : 32, £u o ^eos eSo^aa-Orj ev auTw, 
 omission well attested; 13:34, tva Kat up.£ts aya7raT£ aAA>;Aous, XT al '°, 
 
 "q: Si ergo corpus tuum lucernam non habens lucidam obscurum est, quanto 
 magis cum lucerna luceat, inluminat te. 
 
 f : Si enim corpus quod in te est lucernam non habuerit lucentem tibi tenebrosa 
 est, quanto magis autem lucerna tua fulgens lucebit tibi. 
 
12 NEW TESTAMENT CANON IN SYRIAN CHURCH 
 
 c e ff ' om.; 14 : 10, to. prffjiara to avros Trotet ra €pya ; 14:11; 14:14, XA i. 22 
 2P* 6p* al5 b fu Syr *"■ Arm ='°'' et '^'•'^ om. ; 16:3; 17:11, w SeSwKas to 77/u.cis, 
 Hil *'''• '"^'^ om.; 20:7; 21:15, abc eff^ om. TrAeov tovtwv, a e om. 
 av otSas OTt <^iXw (re; 21 : 16, a om. (tv oiSas ort <^iXcd ere; 21 125, oo-a — ouSc 
 avTov ot/xat — ra ypa^o/ACva f^i/SXLa, Tisch. om. entire verse, a b e ff' et 
 alia autem [b quidem a om.] multa fecit Jesus = Ss, L n ti ariva eav ypa<f>r)Tai 
 
 The result of this comparison cannot be doubtful. It places the 
 translator of Ss in the right light ; he is very faithful to his original. 
 Though there are some omissions which cannot be duplicated in other 
 MSS., yet most of them can. This leads us to think that these other 
 omissions also were not his own ; he found them already in his Greek 
 text. 
 
 The same will be seen in his additions, which are said to be due to 
 Ss' idiosyncrasies. They also can be duplicated — most of them at least. 
 It will be remembered that the additions are small, and not of so great 
 importance as the omissions. The limited number given in the foot- 
 note below'' will therefore suffice to show that they also are not made 
 by him in order to make his text clearer, but they are there because 
 they were in his original Greek. 
 
 Having shown that Ss is faithful to his original, and that he repro- 
 duces his Greek text accurately, we are ready to see that the original 
 of Ss must have been different from that of Sc. Sc uses a much fuller 
 Greek text than Ss. Here are some verses which are not in Ss, but are 
 in Sc : Matt, i : Sl>; 4 : 243,- 5 : 25, 30, 47 ; 6:5; 8:5 (partly) ; 23 : 14 ; 
 Mark 16 : 9-20 ; Luke 8:43; 9 : 55, 56; i2:38<^/ 22 : 43, 44; 23: 12- 
 i4> 34; John 5:12; 14:10, II. There are few additions which Ss 
 has and which are not in Sc : Luke 1 1 : 36 ; 14:13; 19 : 32 ; 23 : 20 ; 
 
 " Matt. 10 : 23, " and if they persecute you in the other city, flee ye to another." 
 W-H place it in the margin, which shows that there are at least some texts which 
 have it. 27 : 16, "Jesus " is added to Barabbas. This we find also in the Palestinian 
 S3T"iac, which shows that it was not an addition of Ss, but that there were Greek texts 
 which had this addition. — John 3 : 8, Ss adds Trvev/jLa de 6eos ; c/. Tischendorf's note, 
 which shows that Ss does not stand alone in doing this. — Luke 23 : 37, Ss (-j- Sc) adds 
 Xatpe .... /cat eTrfOrjKav ewi Tr}v K€<pa\rjv avrov a're<pavov aKavdivov. — D c X^'-P^ .... 
 TrepiTfOevTei (d imponentes c imposuerunt autem) avTCj) Kai aKaudivov <rT€<pavov. — John 
 20 : 16, Ss adds : Kai wpoffedpaixev a^affdai. avrov. S "^^ 13. 346. g. gat. mm Syr p et*" 
 
 Qyj.4. io«3 also. 12:3, Ss has with D d, etc effudit super caput ihesu recumbentis. 
 
 — Luke 23 : 48, Ss, " Saying ' woe unto us, what hath befallen us ! Woe unto us for our 
 sins.'" Sc has this also. So has the gospel of Peter. Very similar is g i : "Vae 
 nobis, quae facta sunt hodie propter peccata nostra, appropinquavit enim desolatio 
 Hierosolem." — Matt. 27:28, Ss adds. irop<pvpovv ; so also D 157 abcfff', etc. 
 
PRELIM IN A R V INVES TIG A TIONS 1 3 
 
 John 6:13; none of them are, moreover, entire verses, but only 
 parts of verses. 
 
 Another argument for the difference of texts lies in translations 
 in which Ss is paralleled by other texts, and Sc also, but different from 
 those representing Ss : 
 
 E. g.. Matt. 3:16, where Ss = pa^? IZaio,^ = Iv eiSci Trcpto-rcpas ; Sc = 
 jja^ ^1 = <ii(rci TTC/aicTTcpav = W-H, Tisch. The text of Ss is represented 
 by Ev. Ebion. : xat to? ai/r^X^ev aito tov uSaros, rjvoiytjcrav ot ovpavot Kat ci8c 
 TO TTvevfia TOV 6(.ov TOV ayiov ev etSet Treptore/jas Ka6e\6ov<rr]'i kixi a,(Te\6ovar]i 
 €is aVTOv; cf. Ephraim, Diatessaron, too. 5:2, Ss : y\p\i.TO Xiytiv avTots ; 
 Sc : Kox dvot^as to orTOfxa ovtov eSt'Sacr/cev avTov<i Acywv, the regular text. 
 27:16, 17, Ss : 'Irja-ovv Bapay8/3av — witnesses see in Tischendorf; Sc : 
 Bapa^^av, regular text. — Luke 2 : 48, Ss : o irarrip crov Kayco, on the difference 
 in the tradition cf. Tisch.; Sc : iJ/aeis. ii : 36, Ss has the verse, Sc omits it 
 with D a b c ff^ i. 11 : 13, Ss: 86fw.Ta dyaOd, for witnesses for this reading 
 cf. Tisch. ; Sc : irvtvfia ayiov, the accepted reading. 1 1 : 38, Ss : idav/xaa-tv, so 
 Tisch., W-H ; Sc : rjpiaTO 8taKpivo/i.evos ev cavTw Ae'yetv ; there are a number of 
 witnesses for this reading. — Matt. 21:31, Ss : 6 vaTcpo's, D and others; 
 Sc : 6 Tr/jtoTOs, Tischendorf 's text. 3 :4, Ss : aypos ]?q4 , so also the Palest. Syriac 
 and the Diat. ; Sc : ayptos Ij-o , all others. — Luke 19:32, Ss has 01 ciTreo-TaA- 
 fievoi Ka^ws tlirev awTots, with W-H, Textus Receptus, Tischendorf; Sc omits 
 it; so e (UG). — Matt. 5:45, the different position of the verses: Ss has 
 the regular order, Sc vss. 5, 4, paralleled by other texts. 
 
 Such examples show very clearly that the two Greek texts underlying 
 Ssand Sc respectively were different from each other. Sc's text is much 
 fuller than Ss'. Both texts are very old, dating certainly from the 
 second century; but Ss' is older than that of Sc ; compare for this the 
 first chapter of Matthew relating the birth of Jesus, and the omissions 
 as well as the sometimes curious additions. Add to this priority of 
 Ss' Greek original the afifinity which exists between the Sinaiticus and 
 the Palestinian Syriac, and the fact that Sc's divisions in the text are 
 finer than those of Ss,'* and it follows that Ss is older than Sc. 
 
 We have now reached the conclusion that, though Ss is closely 
 related to Sc, though both are translations from the Greek, Sc is no 
 mere recension of Ss ; that the Greek text underlying them is not the 
 same, Ss' being older ; that Ss is older than Sc. Now we must answer 
 the question : What is, then, the relation of Ss to Sc, if one is not a 
 recension of the other ? 
 
 '■ C/. Merx in his German translation. 
 
14 NEW TESTAMENT CANON IN SYRIAN CHURCH 
 
 Two answers are possible, which do not exclude each other : either 
 the translators of Ss and Sc belonged to the same school, or they used 
 the same Syriac text (Syr. vetus) as the basis of their own translation. 
 
 When two men who have had the same education are called upon 
 to translate a given piece from one language into another, the ground 
 stock of the work will be the same, but in details the two translations 
 will differ. Each will naturally use the terms which lie most 
 readily at his hand. Sometimes they will have exactly the same 
 translation ; sometimes the words which we mostly find in the 
 one will be in the other, and vice versa. Lexical differences are 
 inevitable. Grammatical differences are also to be expected ; it would 
 be strange if they were not found. Differences in the constructions 
 are bound to arise, because no two men use the same constructions, 
 though they may have always been in the same school. All this is 
 what we find in these two texts, Ss and Sc. The ground stock of the 
 two, leaving out of account the so-called omissions and additions, is 
 essentially the same, but the vocabulary and the grammar of the two 
 are different. They belong to the same school ; their task was the same, 
 viz., to translate a given text from Greek into Syriac; their ability was 
 about the same ; but their works are in a way independent of each 
 other. The relation which exists between the two proves that they 
 belonged to the same school, not that one is dependent on the other. 
 
 This is the most satisfactory way of explaining the relationship of 
 the two, which agree in so many parts and differ so decidedly in so 
 many others. 
 
 The other answer, that both Ss and Sc used the same Syriac text as a 
 basis of their work, might also explain the matter, though one would still 
 be at a loss how to explain the many differences. The groundwork 
 of Ss and Sc would be that of the Old Syriac, which has not yet been 
 discovered. Both Ss and Sc would have changed that text as to voca- 
 bulary and grammar pretty much as they pleased. They would still be 
 independent of each other in the way that neither of them made use of 
 the other, both simply taking the same text as a foundation. The whole 
 process, however, does not commend itself as so simple in its solution 
 of the difficulties." 
 
 This brings up the question about the Old Syriac, that text which 
 .s supposed to lie back of all the texts we have. To speak dogmatically 
 
 •» The examples given by Wellhausen and Nestle, which point in the direction 
 that some expressions in Sc are older than the corresponding expressions in Ss, give 
 some foundation to this theory. 
 
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGA TIONS I 5 
 
 on this subject is hazardous ; the data are too few. The opinion to 
 which I have come is as follows : It cannot be proved as yet, and must 
 be taken for what it is worth. The very first gospel translator in Syria 
 did not translate all four gospels, but one. Which one of the four we 
 cannot tell ; perhaps Mark, perhaps John. This would meet at first all 
 the requirements. But soon somebody else, or perhaps the same man 
 who translated the first gospel, would take another gospel and trans- 
 late that also. The two would come together. The same process 
 would be repeated till all four gospels were translated. The different 
 order in Ss and Sc — Ss = Matthew, Mark, Luke, John ; Sc = Matthew, 
 Mark, John, Luke — points in this direction. At first the gospels existed 
 side by side ; then they would be bound together ; the order would vary 
 in the different copies. Gradually, through outside influence, the posi- 
 tion of Matthew and Mark would become fixed (or does the position 
 perhaps indicate that they were first translated ?). As to Luke and John 
 there was still some fluctuation, till the now accepted order : Matthew, 
 Mark, Luke, John, became established. 
 
 This suggestion will appear still more plausible when we come to 
 look at it in the light of the history of the foundation of the Syrian 
 church. 
 
 2. The Relation of Ss and Sc to P. 
 
 It has long been recognized that the Peshitta was not the original 
 Old Syriac text. Already in the last century men pointed out that 
 this text must be the result of a development, the last of a series of 
 which the other parts were at that time still wanting. But since the 
 discovery of Sc in 1842 (1858) and of Ss in 1892 the proofs of this 
 assertion have become manifest. 
 
 I do not think, however, that it can be asserted justly that P is a 
 recension of Ss and Sc. There is no doubt that all of them are related 
 to each other, but that does not mean that P is a recension of the 
 others. A comparison of the three texts shows that in many passages 
 P = Ss = Sc; that they have a good deal in common. But there 
 are also many passages where P agrees with the one and differs 
 from the other ; in others it differs from both, whether they be alike or 
 different from each other." That means that P is, indeed, related 
 to Ss and Sc, but is at the same time relatively independent of 
 them ; the process which was described in connection with Ss and Sc 
 is evidently repeated here. As there, so here, the translator worked 
 independently, but was influenced now by Ss, now by Sc. The fact 
 
 ~ Cf. Alb. Bonus, Collatio, etc. 
 
l6 NEW TESTAMENT CANON IN SYRIAN CHURCH 
 
 that P combines the readings of Ss and Sc helps us to determine P's 
 age, not absolutely, but relatively. Can it be said that P is the oldest 
 text, on which Ss and Sc base their translations ? That would explain 
 why P agrees now with Ss, now with Sc. But it would not explain the 
 great differences of the three texts. These differences can be accounted 
 for only on the assumption of different Greek originals. And as regards 
 these Greek originals, it is at once clear that P does not present nearly 
 as old a text as either Ss or Sc, a fact which is so apparent to the 
 reader of the three that it needs no further proof. Texts like Ss and 
 Sc presuppose a very old Greek original, which cannot be claimed 
 for P. We have, then, a text combining the readings of two other 
 texts, but using a later original than the two others. The conclusion 
 is inevitable : P is later than Ss and Sc, by which it is influenced. 
 The motive which lay at the basis of these three different texts is 
 to be sought in the desire of the Syrians to conform their text to that 
 which was accepted by the Graeco-Roman church." That desire neces- 
 sitated the translation of P especially, but P is only one of the texts 
 which originated under these circumstances. We shall find others sug- 
 gested by Aphraates and Ephraim. 
 
 At this point it is well to sum up the results which we have reached 
 thus far : 
 
 1. There is a certain kind of relationship between Ss and Sc ; they are not 
 absolutely independent of each other. 
 
 2. Both Ss and Sc are translations from the Greek. 
 
 3. Sc is not a mere recension of Ss, nor vice versa. 
 
 4. Ss presupposes a Greek original different from that of Sc. 
 
 5. Ss' original Greek was shorter and older than Sc's. 
 
 6. Ss is older than Sc. 
 
 7. The close resemblance of Ss and Sc in many parts and the difference in 
 others is explained by the fact that the translators either belonged to 
 the same school or used the same Syriac text (the Old Syriac) as the 
 basis of their own translations. The first is the more probable explana- 
 tion. 
 
 8. The relation of P to Ss and Sc is similar to that of Ss to Sc. P is no 
 
 recension of either, but is influenced by both, which is seen in the fact 
 that it combines the readings of both. 
 
 9. The original Greek of P is younger than that of either Ss or Sc. 
 ID. P is younger than Ss and Sc, the genealogy being : Ss, Sc, P. 
 
 " See also Zahn and Holzhey. 
 
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGA TIONS I ^ 
 
 J. The Relation of Ss, Sc, and P to the Diatessaron." 
 
 It is a great misfortune that we do not possess the original of 
 Tatian's Diatessaron. As was already noticed, the determination of 
 the priority of the gospel harmony or of the separate gospels has to 
 rest wholly on internal evidence. And this is very precarious and 
 very difficult, because the text of Tatian's work has by no means been 
 fixed yet. Though there are for the reconstruction of it the com- 
 mentary of Ephraim on the Diatessaron, the citations of Aphraates, 
 the Arabic Diatessaron, the Latin harmony of Victor of Capua, and 
 the references in the Syrian church fathers, yet these witnesses are 
 not all too reliable, and their testimony may be challenged.'^ 
 
 In addition to this uncertainty about the text comes the fact that 
 we do not know how faithfully Tatian handled his sources. His pur- 
 pose was practical — he wanted to make a gospel harmony ; but we know 
 from several sources that he omitted certain portions which did not 
 please him, and others he altered as he wanted. 
 
 We must keep these facts in mind in making our examination. 
 And it may be said that, in view of all this, an absolutely certain 
 result is not to be expected. It must necessarily be largely a balancing 
 of arguments, which to some minds will preponderate in this, to others 
 in that direction. 
 
 " Cf. F. C. BURKITT, in The Guardian, October 31, 1894. 
 
 "3 Ephraim's fragments are of the greatest value, but one has to remember that 
 they are not accessible in the original, and also that he uses the Peshitto, too, which 
 is, indeed, his ordinary Bible. He must often have mixed the two together, and 
 in some passages have given the Peshitta reading, which was not at all in the Diates- 
 saron. 
 
 Aphraates is the only one who preserves the citations in Syriac, excepting the 
 later church fathers, who quote from Ephraim, and yet even he must be looked upon 
 with suspicion, because he also, as we shall see, knew and used another version of 
 the gospels, different from the Diatessaron, side by side with the harmony. 
 
 The Arabic Diatessaron must have undergone considerable changes, not only 
 owing to the translations from one language into the other. Peculiar readings will 
 have been erased by orthodox men, so as to make the work more conformed to the 
 orthodox New Testament. It is, perhaps, mainly useful for the arrangement of the 
 original work, for, as is evident from Aphraates, many portions which were harmon- 
 ized by the original work are given here only in the translation of one of the parallel 
 passages ; the finely interwoven network of Tatian has disappeared from them. 
 
 The Latin harmony of Victor of Capua is based on the Vulgate, and so cannot 
 be of very much use, though, of course, for the arrangement, and perhaps also now 
 and then for a text which the scribe might not always have found in the Vulgate, and 
 therefore translated directly from the Syriac, it might be of some use. 
 
1 8 NEW TESTAMENT CANON IN SYRIAN CHURCH 
 
 One thing, however, is clear and absolutely certain, namely, that 
 the two sets of texts, the separate and the interwoven gospels, are 
 related to each other, are dependent one on the other, the only ques- 
 tion being which is the earlier.^^ 
 
 Such agreements as these are the best evidence for the fact that 
 the gospel harmony of Tatian and the separate gospels stand in an inti- 
 mate relationship. The problem before us now is : What is their relative 
 age, which is prior, T or the separate gospels ? 
 
 We are at once confronted with the question : How could the 
 Diatessaron have had such a prominence in the early Syrian church ; 
 how could it have been used so widely, if it was not the first gospel 
 which the Syrians had ? This argument in favor of Tatian's gospel 
 harmony is of very little weight. It seems, of course, at first sight, to 
 stand absolutely in the way of the priority of the separate gospels. 
 For how could it be, it is asked, that the Syrians should have possessed 
 and used first the separate gospels and then, when the Diatessaron 
 came, laid those original gospels aside and used only the Diatessaron ? 
 First of all, it is a pure assumption, which cannot be verified, that 
 they suspended the use of the separate gospels entirely. Secondly, it 
 must not be overlooked that a harmony has many practical advantages 
 over the separate gospels, especially for liturgical purposes. Thirdly, 
 it must not be forgotten that the harmony was made just about the 
 time when Christianity became the national religion of Syria. The 
 
 ^* Evidences of this relationship are seen in such passages as Matt. 3 : 4, where 
 Ss and T read, instead of ixeki aypiov, fieXi aypov ]?a4» , while Sc, P, and most of the 
 Greek texts read fieXi aypiov. A reading like this points to some kind of an affinity 
 between the two texts. — 3:10 ( = Luke 3 : 9), "HSt; 5^ ij'd^lvTi irpb% rr)v pl^av rw* 
 SivSpup KeiTttt is translated by T and all the separate gospels, Ss, Sc, P, as if there stood 
 tSe, contrary to all other witnesses to the text. — 3 : 16, Ss and T read iv eldei nepiffrepas, 
 which only few minor witnesses have, while the great bulk of the Greek MSS., 
 together with Sc and P, read wcrei (ws) TrepKXTep&v. — 13:48, Ss, Sc, T translate the 
 words ffvv^Xe^av rh /caXd els A7777 (or dyyeia) as if they had read (rvyiXe^av roi KaXh «/j 
 iyaOd. — Mark 6:8, Ss translates in 'iva fx-qUv a'tpcjai els odby el firj pd^8ov fji6pov , the 
 ^d^Sov with shavtd, evidently to bring this statement into harmony with Matt. 10:10 
 and Luke 9 :3, where the pd^dov is not allowed. P. has shavtd in all three passages, 
 Sc has it in Luke 9 : 3, Matt. 10 : 10 being missing. Now, Tatian's Diatessaron has : 
 " Possess . . . . a staff .... [but] no stick,'' which is precisely what we find in Ss. Ss 
 has, namely, in Matt. 10 : 10, Luke 9 : 3, a different word from that used in Mark 6 : 8, 
 viz., khutrd ( " bludgeon " ). — John 4 : 25, Ss and T translate the regular text ol^a. Sri 
 Meffjlas epx^Tai, Srav e\By iKetvos, dvayyeXei ijfuv Airavra with Ide Mefffflas epxerai, 
 Srav ("KOrj iKeivos dw(Tei {ifp-tv omitted by Ss) HiravTa., a reading which is unparalleled 
 by any other text. See Zahn, Theol. Literatur-Blatt, 1895, No. 25 ; Burkitt, /. c, 
 for these examples. 
 
PRELIM IN A R V INVESTIGA TIONS 1 9 
 
 question may be asked, with just as much weight, whether it would be 
 possible, or probable, that the Syrian Christians should have done so 
 long without the gospels that they received the first translation not 
 before about 172 A. D. Again, would it be likely that the translator 
 of the four separate gospels should have used the Diatessaron as the 
 basis of his translation, should have untwisted the finely coupled, 
 sometimes masterly mixed, substance, and then should have gone on 
 with his translation ? Does it not seem much more natural that the 
 compiler of the harmony used a Syriac translation of the separate 
 gospels, which would save him the work of translating before he began 
 to harmonize ? This supposition does not rest on common-sense 
 only ; positive proof can be adduced for it. 
 
 Incidentally it should be said here that there is now practically 
 unanimity in regard to the fact that the Diatessaron of Tatian was 
 "von Haus aus" (/. e., originally) Syriac. This has been proved espe- 
 cially by Zahn, and also by J. Rendel Harris. Harnack stands practi- 
 cally alone in his contention that it was composed in Greek, and not 
 in Syriac. 
 
 But to return to the proof for the statement that the author of the 
 harmony based his work on a Syriac translation of the separate gos- 
 pels which existed already at his time. I quote from J. Rendel Harris : 
 
 One of the most characteristic readings of Tatian has been held to be the 
 expression of Mark (viii. 26), preserved in the Arabic Harmony, where we 
 are told that the Syro-Phenician woman, upon whose daughter the Lord 
 showed compassion, was a native of Emesa (or Horns) of Syria. The reading 
 has, at first sight, every appearance of being an addition to the information 
 in the canonical gospels. If it is really a part of Tatian's text, I can prove, 
 however, that he was working on Syriac gospels. The proof is as follows : 
 The Persian version, which was made from a Syriac text, says the woman 
 was "from Phenice of Syria — /. e., from Horns," from which we suspect that 
 Homs of Syria in Tatian's text is merely an explanation of " Phenice of 
 Syria." And this is confirmed by the dictionary of Bar Ali and a number of 
 other authorities, who tell us that "Phenice of Syria is the city Homs." If, 
 then, Tatian's text had " Homs of Syria," it is explanatory of an earlier text 
 " Phenice of Syria," and this text must have been a translation of the trouble- 
 some Greek word "Syro-Phenician." The collateral evidence for the exist- 
 ence of such a translation is abundant. Tatian was, therefore, working on 
 translated gospels. It appears, therefore, that his evidence also, as might 
 have been expected, runs back into a Syriac source.^= 
 
 *5 J. Rendel Harris in the Contemporary Review, November, 1894, p. 671. For 
 the other proofs see Zahn's Gesch. d. Kanons. 
 
20 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT CANON IN SYRIAN CHURCH 
 
 We have up to this point seen ( i ) that there exists an intimate 
 relationship between Ss and T, and (2) that T has based his work on 
 already existing Syriac gospels. Is there now any proof in the text of 
 Ss which shows that the text it represents was earlier than T ? 
 
 The strongest proof will certainly be in a comparison of pas- 
 sages in which we clearly see the dogmatic character of Tatian. 
 Though, of course, the work of Tatian was made, not for dogmatic and 
 theological, but for practical reasons, we know from some writers 
 that he held certain heretical views, which found expression in the 
 omission of passages which contradicted his views, and which he 
 therefore believed to be wrong.''* There are two points especially : 
 (i) his rejection of marriage, and (2) his opposition to everything 
 which showed the Davidic descent of Jesus. 
 
 Now let us compare Matt, i : 19-25 : 
 
 Sc 
 
 Ss 
 
 Now Joseph her husband 
 
 19. Now Joseph, 
 because he 
 was a just man 
 
 20. Joseph, son of David, 
 
 do not fear to marry 
 Mary thy betrothed 
 
 21. For she shall bear 
 a son, and his 
 name shall be called 
 Jesus, for he shall save = 
 
 the world from their sins his people from = 
 
 omits : man 
 
 Mary thy wife 
 
 thee a son 
 and thou shalt call 
 
 Arab. Diat. 
 
 = Ss 
 = Sc 
 = Sc 
 
 = Sc 
 
 = Ss 
 = Sc 
 
 = Ss 
 = Ss 
 
 =:SS 
 
 Ephraim 
 
 = Sc 
 = Sc 
 = Sc 
 omits 
 son of David 
 
 simply : Mary 
 missing 
 
 25. And he married Mary 
 and lived Purely with her 
 
 Mary his wife and took his wife took her 
 
 until she bare the son 
 
 and she called 
 his name Jesus 
 
 and knew her not = Sc 
 
 until she until she 
 
 and she bare hitn a son bare her bare her 
 
 firstborn son firstborn 
 
 and he called 
 
 Now, suppose T were the oldest and Ss were based on it, what rea- 
 son should Ss have to alter the text of T so much that he has quite a 
 unique text ? There is no dogmatic presupposition found in his 
 translation, and everyone who reads this narrative about the birth of 
 Christ is struck by the simplicity and naturalness of Ss, which comes 
 out perhaps most strongly in vs. 16, omitted by T : 
 
 *^ Cf. especially Eusebius, IV, 29, and Theodoret, I, 20. 
 
PRELIM IN A RY IN VES TIG A TIONS 2 1 
 
 Jacob begat Joseph ; Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the virgin, 
 begat Jesus, who is called Christ. 
 
 The idea that this is the work of a heretic must at once be dis- 
 missed, since it has no foundation in the whole translation, which is 
 entirely without theological bias. The text of Ss draws really the cor- 
 rect conclusion from that genealogy. On the other hand, we know 
 that Tatian had dogmatic presuppositions. He never mentions Mary 
 and Joseph as husband and wife. He emphasizes the fact that they 
 lived purely with each other. He omits the genealogies altogether, 
 because they showed the Davidic descent of Christ. Now, in the text 
 of Ss we have — 
 
 I. The emphasis on the married relationship of Mary and Joseph. 
 
 Ss 
 
 
 Sc 
 
 T 
 
 Joseph her husband 
 
 
 omits: her husband 
 
 =Sc 
 
 Mary thy wije 
 
 
 thy bethrothed 
 
 omits 
 
 married his wife 
 
 
 omits : his wife 
 
 = Sc 
 
 she shall bear thee a 
 
 son 
 
 omits : thee 
 
 
 thou shalt call his name 
 
 his name shall be called 
 
 
 he called his name 
 
 
 she called his name 
 
 
 
 
 adds : lived purely with 
 her 
 
 he dwelt with her in 
 
 
 purity 
 
 2. The Davidic descent of Jesus. 
 
 In the genealogies, in the sentence, "Joseph begat Jesus," "Joseph 
 was called the father of Jesus," and especially in vs. 20, "Joseph, son 
 of David, do not fear." 
 
 While we can find no ground why Ss should have altered Tatian's 
 text into his really unique and unparalleled text, there are strong rea- 
 sons for supposing that Tatian found this text of Ss and modified it 
 to suit his views. 
 
 An objection which might be made to the second argument, as 
 to the Davidic descent of Jesus, must be considered here. Ephraim 
 says in his commentary on the Diatessaron : " Eadem scriptura 
 dixit, utrumque Josephum et Mariam esse ex domo David." (Moesin- 
 ger, Evgl. Concord. Expos., p. 26.) This seems to contradict the 
 statement that Tatian omitted everything which related to the Davidic 
 descent of Jesus. But one must not be rash in such a conclusion. 
 Ephraim uses the separate gospel text, too ; all the citations in his com- 
 mentary cannot be regarded as belonging to the Diatessaron, and it is 
 conceded that many are from the separate gospels. I would therefore 
 rather trust the eyewitness Theodoret, who had seen copies of the Syriac 
 
22 NEiV TESTAMENT CANON IN SYRIAN CHURCH 
 
 work, as we have not. Thus I believe that these words were not in 
 the original Diatessaron, but were taken from the separate gospels. 
 That this is correct is shown by the text of Ss in Luke 2 : 4, "because 
 both were from the house of David;" while P and W-H have: 8ta 
 TO eivat avTov €$ oikov kol Trarpta? AavetS. 
 
 The second argument is, therefore, valid, and it must be recognized, 
 though the first argument alone would be sufficient for our purpose. 
 
 Again, there are peculiarities in Ss which cannot be later than T."' 
 
 Another argument for the priority of the separate gospels over 
 against the harmony lies in the omissions of Ss, especially of Mark 
 16:9-20, the so- called "longer conclusion." Ss omits it, breaking 
 suddenly off with: "for they were afraid." Then we have the colo- 
 phon, "Here endeth the gospel of Mark," and then begins at once in 
 the same column, showing that nothing has been omitted, the gospel 
 of Luke. Ss did not have vss. 9-16 just as J^, B. But everybody 
 recognizes that these verses were in the original Diatessaron. Sc has 
 them, too. If Ss had T before him, why, then, did he leave out these 
 verses ? No reason whatever can be found for the omission but the 
 one that Ss did not find these verses in the original from which he 
 made his translation. And it is evident, therefore, that this original 
 was not T, for in T these verses are found. 
 
 But that is not claimed at all, one might say. Evidently Ss had 
 not only T, but also a Greek MS. before him. He followed the Greek 
 MS. ; thus this omission is no reason why Ss should be earlier than T. 
 
 This is a natural objection. However, it will be noticed that the 
 omission of those verses occurs in the earliest Greek MS., while only 
 the later Greek texts have the passage. The same applies to the 
 
 '7" There is at least one passage where we know the Diatessaron to have contained 
 a peculiar interpretation of the ordinary Greek text, but where Sinaiticus has a striking 
 mistranslation (or a corruption of the underlying Greek text), which could hardly have 
 passed into circulation after the Diatessaron reading was current ; i. e., Luke 4 : 29, 
 w(rT£ KttTtt Kprjuviffai avrov, which was taken by Tatian to imply that the men of Naza- 
 reth actually threw our Lord over the cliff. But in Sin. we read : 'And they led him 
 out as far as the top (?) of the mountain upon which their city was built, so as to hang 
 him.' The last clause is evidently meant for were Kpefxaa-ai avrov. Such a gross mis- 
 translation must date from very early times." (Burkitt.) Besides, readings like 
 Matt. 27 : 16, 17, where Ss has '^/esus Bar-Abbas," which is also in S*^'"; Luke 2 : 36, 
 which affirms that Hanna had lived only seven days with her husband before she 
 became a widow ; Luke 4 : 29, " He who eats the Apurrov in the kingdom of God," must 
 be very old, and are of such a character that "niemand (sic) spater in ein Neucs 
 Testament hineincorrigiert haben wUrde." {C/. Nestle, Theolog. Literatur-Zeituns, 
 I. c.) 
 
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGA TIONS 23 
 
 omission of other passages in Ss which are in T, e. g., Luke 22: 43, 44 ; 
 23 : 34^. It is only the earliest MSS. which omit them. 
 
 The case lies, then, ilms : Ss used an older Greek MS. than T. 
 Is this natural in the case that Ss is later than T ? Evidently not. 
 
 Besides, it is a great question whether a later author would omit 
 such passages as, e. g., " Father, forgive them, for they know not what 
 they do," a passage which must have immediately taken hold of the 
 hearts of the people when once given. Now, would an author who 
 began his work when this word of Jesus on the cross was already 
 familiar to the people from the harmony which they used, omit it, even 
 though it were not in the Greek MS. from which he translated ? Would 
 not the people charge him at once with having omitted some of the 
 most precious parts of the gospel ? Would for those simple-minded, 
 earnest, practical Christians an answer be sufficient which told them : 
 these are really not original parts of the gospel, they are later addi- 
 tions? That might do for a modern critic. But one may safely chal- 
 lenge anyone to try today whether the great mass of earnest, devoted 
 Christians would be willing to give up those texts simply because they 
 are not found in the earliest MSS. And then, the whole character of 
 the work of Ss shows that the author's purpose was practical : he 
 wanted to give the people a gospel which they could read and under- 
 stand ; there were none of the elements of the modern text critic in 
 him. His work was for the people. But will the people be willing to 
 accept his work when they could say: " Our old gospel, our Diates- 
 saron, is much better than this new version. It has those words which 
 we love, but this version has omitted them " ? Impossible that he should 
 not have thought of this. No ; the omission of those passages in Ss 
 shows very clearly that he did not have T before him ; that T must be 
 later; else they would have been taken account of, no matter whether 
 the Greek MS. of Ss had them or not. 
 
 These arguments from the comparison of dogmatic passages in 
 T and Ss, from the peculiarities of Ss, which would scarcely have found 
 their place after T's work, and from the omissions of Ss, are perhaps 
 as strong arguments as we can expect in the absence of external wit- 
 ness. It is their inherent force which convinces us that the text repre- 
 sented by Ss, the Syr. vet., is older than the Diatessaron, and that the 
 relation that exists between them is the dependence of T on Ss. 
 
 There is, however, also a clear influence of T on Ss. And this 
 fact — I refer to the presence of harmonistic readings in Ss — is the 
 main, if not the only real, argument for the opposite view, which affirms 
 the priority of T over against Ss. 
 
24 NEW TESTAMENT CANON IN SYRIAN CHURCH 
 
 That there are such harmonistic readings in Ss is plain from such 
 passages as Mark 8:32; 7 : 28, and others.'^ 
 
 It is not necessary for our argument to point out the harmonistic 
 readings in Sc. They were already recognized by Cureton, who in his 
 preface, p. Ixvi, says : 
 
 If we turn to St. Luke, we find several examples of additions made to the text 
 from the other evangelists, who had related some fact or discourse in greater 
 detail, or with some additional circumstances ; of the change of words or 
 phrases to accommodate them and bring them nearer, or even to make them 
 identical with the terms employed in other gospels. The gospel of St. John, 
 from its peculiarity in having less in common than the other three, will neces- 
 sarily admit of fewer changes of this sort ; but still, even in that small portion 
 of it which remains, indications of this kind are observable. Of Mark only 
 four verses of the last chapter remain. The gospel of St. Matthew also seems 
 to exhibit some signs of a similar nature, especially with regard to additions 
 made to the text. 
 
 According to his theory that this Syriac gospel of Matthew repre- 
 sents "more nearly the exact words which the evangelist himself made 
 use of than any other that has hitherto been discovered," Cureton 
 attributes " its approximation in numerous places to the reading found 
 in St. Mark and St. Luke " to this cause, and not to the same to which 
 he ascribes the harmonistic readings in Mark, Luke, and John. 
 
 After Cureton, Baethgen especially has called attention to these 
 harmonistic readings, and has made much use of them for his argument 
 
 "* Mark 8 : 32, where Ss has : " And Simon Peter, as though pitying him, said, 
 ' Be this far from thee.' " This is evidently a conflation of Mark and Matt. The 
 Greek has in Matt. : kixi. wpoaXa^ofievos avrov o Jlerpos rjp^aTo eiTLTLp.av avrif Xeyuv 
 iXews (Tot Kvpie ov p.t} effrai tovto. In Mark : /cat wpoffXa^onevos o Ylerpos avrov ijpfaro 
 eTriTi/xav avru. The phrase in Ss, " as though pitying him," is plainly a translation 
 of the Greek words iXews <roi of Matt. Now, exactly the same phrase occurs in the 
 Arabic Diatessaron, which translates: "And Simon Peter, as if sympathizing with 
 him, said, ' Be this far from thee, Lord.' " Now, it is true that a b n combine also 
 Matt, and Mark, but the agreement is not so close as in the case of Ss and T. — 
 Matt. 7 : 28, Ss reads : *cai to Kvvapia effOiei airo rwv ^pix^uv ruv wnrrovrtav airo rifj 
 TpoirefTjj (or airo rwv rpaire^oiv) rwv iraidiwv. The Greek has in Matt, ra Kvvapia eaOiet, 
 airo rwv \pi.xi-wv rwv irnrrovrwv airo rrji rpaire^rjs rwv Kvpiwv ; in Mark : ra Kvvapia viro 
 Karw Tijs rpaire^-qs fcrdiovffiv airo rwv ipixiwv rwv waidiwv. Ss omits in Matt, airo rwv 
 xj/iXi-wv rwv irnrrovrwv, but reads it in Mark, where it is not in the Greek. Ephraim's 
 Diatessaron has : " Even dogs eat of the crumbs of their master's table" = Greek of 
 Mark. Ss takes the airo rwv \f/ixi-wv rwv iriirrovrwv from Matt., but it retains the 
 reading rwv iraiSiwv. — - For other instances see Zahn's article in the Theologische 
 Literatur-Blatt, 1895, and the transpositions in the passion story, Luke 22 : 16, 19, 
 20a, 17, 20b, 18, 21 ; John i8 : 13, 24, 14, 15, 19-23, 16-18, 25, which seem to point 
 to a harmony. 
 
PRELIM IN A RY IN VES TIG A TIONS 2 5 
 
 of the priority of the Diatessaron. But as to this, it will be suffi- 
 cient to quote the words of Burkitt in the Guardian, October 31, 1894 : 
 Baethgen brings forward a number of instances of harmonistic readings 
 of Cur., but out of his forty-three examples where Cur. stands alone (or 
 with Diat. only), sixteen, or more than one-third, are not shared by Sin. . . . 
 Matt. 21 : 33-44 is selected by Baethgen to exhibit the harmonistic tendencies 
 of Syr. vet., and of five such readings in these verses peculiar to Cur. alone, 
 three are also found in Sin. Yet even here Sin. shows its independence by 
 passing over vs. 44 altogether, while Cur. and Pesb. follow the ordinary text. 
 The verse is in Diat., where it may, of course, correspond to Luke 20 : 18. 
 Its absence from Sin. in the midst of so many minor harmonistic readings 
 shows that no deliberate attempt at assimilating the gospels one to the other 
 has been made, however much the scribes of Sin. and its ancestors may have 
 been influenced by the wording of parallel verses. 
 
 How do we have to account for the harmonistic readings in Ss ? It 
 is easily said : They are due to the influence of the Diatessaron. There is 
 probably nobody who denies it. But suppose the Old Syriac text of 
 the separate gospels were later than the Diatessaron, how have we to 
 think of the work of its author ? He must have had a Greek MS. in 
 his hand — how else could he disentangle the harmony and restore the 
 text of the separate gospels? He had, then, before him the Syriac har- 
 mony and the Greek MS. Which would be the text that he preferred ? 
 Would he simply look for the corresponding translation of the Greek 
 in the Syriac Diatessaron ? Would he omit the passages which the 
 Diatessaron had, indeed, but which were not in the Greek MS. P Would 
 he add some additions which the Greek text had, but which were want- 
 ing in the Diatessaron ? Would he, in the main, take the text from the 
 already existing Syriac translation, disentangling most passages, but not 
 all, so that some harmonistic touches would remain ? Whatever may 
 be said about this theory, it is absolutely improbable. For this pro- 
 cedure he must have known a good deal of Greek. Why should he 
 then undergo this mechanical, slavish task, which, moreover, was more 
 difficult than the direct translation ? No, the whole translation bears 
 the stamp of originality on its face ; such kind of a work would have 
 left other traces which this noble and forcible piece does not show. 
 
 But then, one objects and asks, wondering how afiyone can set up 
 a theory like this, whether it was not simply so that the author did not 
 have a copy of Tatian's work, but merely a Greek MS., before him ; that 
 he was, however, so familiar with the text of the harmony that there 
 slipped into his translation some harmonistic reminiscences of the 
 Diatessaron. 
 
26 NEW TESTAMENT CANON IN SYRIAN CHURCH 
 
 But, after all, the question arises : If he had the Greek text 
 before him, why should he make these strange excursions ? We have 
 no reason to doubt — on the contrary, we have every reason to believe — 
 that he was a very faithful translator. Here is a man who wants to 
 give the Syrian Christians, who have the Diatessaron already, the sepa- 
 rate gospels as they were used in the Grseco-Roman church. Will he 
 not be careful to shun harmonistic passages, lest he defeat his own end ? 
 Besides, the danger of falling into these lapses is not so great as one 
 might at first think. The work which the translator had to do was not 
 altogether mechanical ; it was not the wearisome toil of simple copying ; 
 there was a good deal of creative work to be done. The mind was 
 profoundly attentive ; this his whole work shows. It was something 
 new that he wanted to give to the people. Since the main stock was 
 already there in the harmony, his diligence must be only the greater, 
 lest he represent the Greek original incorrectly. 
 
 The copyist who had the mechanical work to do was more likely to 
 write down from memory. One who knows what it is to copy hour 
 after hour, perhaps day after day, knows how the attention becomes 
 distracted and the mind grows weary. Familiar as the scribe of the 
 third or fourth century was with the substance of what he was copying, 
 and knowing the text of the Diatessaron well, he must at times have 
 put down the text of the harmony which was so familiar to him, espe- 
 cially in passages where there was agreement in general. It is much 
 easier to think that the harmonistic elements came into Ss through 
 scribes than that they were due to the original translator, unless it could 
 be proved that the Greek text from which he translated contained these 
 harmonistic touches already. Considerations like these weaken or 
 destroy the argument for the priority of the harmony over against Ss. 
 
 And then, even those harmonistic touches which we find in Ss must 
 not all be attributed to the influence of T. This will be seen, for instance 
 in the passage Mark 7 : 28,^' where there is, indeed, a conflation in Ss, but 
 it is found neither in the Ephraim fragments nor in the Arabic Diates- 
 saron. The influence of a parallel passage explains much, and prob- 
 ably some conflations he found already in the Greek MS.^" 
 
 ''See preceding footnote. 
 
 3» Compare for this the words of Jerome in his preface to the gospels, also cited by 
 Cureton : " Magnus si quidem hie in nostris codicibus error inolevit, dum quod in eadem 
 re alius Evangelista plus dixit, in alio quia minus putaverint, addiderunt. Vel dum 
 eundem sensum alius aliter expressit, ille qui unum a quattuor primum legerat, ad ejus 
 exemplum ceteros quoque existimaverit emendandos. Unde accidit ut apud nos 
 mixta sunt omnia, et in Marco plura Lucae atque Matthaei, rursus in Matthaeo plura 
 Johannis et Marci, et in ceteris reliquorum, quae aliis propria sunt, inveniantur." 
 
f UNIVERSITY 3 
 
 PRELIMINARY INVESTIGA TIONS 2 ^ 
 
 The result, then, of our investigation as to the relative age of Ss 
 and T is that Ss is earlier than T, that T was not the earliest gospel 
 which the Syrians knew. 
 
 Now, what is the relation in which T stands to Sc ? We have seen 
 that the text which is represented by Ss is earlier than T. But how about 
 Sc ? Is it also earlier, or is it later ? I think it is clearly later. The 
 arguments which have been brought forward for the priority of Ss can- 
 not be applied to Sc. Sc is so much like T in the dogmatic portions 
 that no other conclusion seems possible than that it is based on T. It 
 contains, moreover, the conclusion of Mark, as well as the most impor- 
 tant other omissions, like Luke 22 143, 44, just as T. Sc apparently 
 presupposes T in its translation. Ss would, then, be the oldest, T 
 would come next, and Sc would come after T. This carries naturally 
 with it the position of P, which is the latest of them all. 
 
 Suppose, however, for a moment that the Diatessaron ( = T) were 
 the earliest form after all. Then one thing would inevitably follow : 
 Sc must be nearer in time to T than Ss, because Sc has undoubted marks 
 of T's influence, much more so than S^ {cf. especially Matt., chap. i). 
 But this would contradict the result of our investigation, for we saw 
 that Ss was older than Sc, and had strong proofs for it. With this the last 
 foundation of Tatian's priority vanishes. The Diatessaron cannot claim 
 the distinction of having been the first written message of the gospel 
 of Christ in Syria. 
 
 The Syrians had, then, the separate gospels in a text which under- 
 lies Ss before they had the Diatessaron. Now it will be asked : If they 
 had already Ss, what was the need of having another translation, that 
 of Sc ? Was Ss not enough ? Here it must not be forgotten that prob- 
 ably for the great mass of the people the Diatessaron was the only form 
 in which they knew the gospels. For the Diatessaron was made at the 
 time when Christianity, from being the religion of individuals, became 
 the religion of the state. To those Christians the Diatessaron was their 
 one and all. They heard it in the church services, and became soon 
 acquainted with it. Naturally they were familiar with Tatian's idea of 
 the birth of Christ. Hearing now from others that the gospels were 
 originally written in four separate accounts, they would be eager to 
 possess them also in that form in which, as they learned, the rest of the 
 Christian churches read them. The desideratum of the hour was, then, 
 for these people, not a work which contradicted the Diatessaron, but one 
 which was in harmony with it, told the narration of the birth in the 
 same words almost as T. A work like Ss would hardly have met their 
 
28 NEW TESTAMENT CANON IN SYRIAN CHURCH 
 
 wishes. To this desire the translation of Sc was due. When it was 
 made we do not know. Perhaps quite early, about 200 A. D., perhaps 
 some fifty years later. How widely it was used it is impossible to say. 
 The same must also be said about the use of Ss ; whether it was used 
 extensively or only in small circles is uncertain. That both were made 
 to fulfil a desire on the part of the people cannot be doubted. For 
 practical, not for critical, purposes did the authors write ; that people 
 should read and be edified, not that scholars should examine and com- 
 pare and inquire which was the correct text and which not. 
 
 Unless other finds show the contrary, Ss in its original form was the 
 first translation to which we can point with historic certainty. The extra- 
 ordinary value of Ss for text-critical purposes has at once been recog- 
 nized.^' It seems to stand on the same level of authority as 5< and B. 
 Merx places it even higher. ^^ Whether that, however, can be main- 
 tained, time will show. But the fact that Ss was written before T, puts 
 it into the middle of the second century, to which the entire text bears 
 witness ; and that places it in the front rank of the witnesses for the 
 original Greek text of the gospels. 
 
 4. The Gospel in Aphraates. 
 
 (i) The first thing which confirms the historical presumption that 
 Aphraates used the Uiatessaron is the fact that he calls the book from 
 which he quotes at least five times simply "the gospel," "his gospel," 
 "the gospel of our vivifier;"^^ never speaking of it as "the gospels," 
 
 3' Ss is used already by Blass in his edition of Luke (Leipzig, 1897) and by Baljon 
 in his Novum Testamentum Graece (Groningen, 1898), who says: "Maioris momenti 
 est codex Syr*'°; eius igitur lectiones diligentissime conquisitas in annotatione 
 ubique (?!) adscripsi " (p. iv). 
 
 3^ Cf. his extremely interesting appendix. He would sometimes take the reading 
 of Ss, even if the entire other tradition be different. Blass also ranks it very high. So 
 would he, just like Merx (and Bechtel)| "dem Syrer der Mrs. Lewis glauben, dass 
 es Luc. 17:10 SoOXot ^o'yuej' heissen muss, ohne a.xp^'ioi..'' {Gram. d. neutestamentl. Griech., 
 p. V.) "At est profecto ubi magna habenda sit vel soli vel paucis testanti : velut quod 
 omittit L. 17:10 axpeioi e Matthaeo in sententiae detrimentum invectum, et Johannis 
 narrationem (18:13 sqq.) cum graeco 225 in veriorem ordinem redigit, ut desinat non 
 modo cum ceterorum sed etiam secum ipse pugnare videri." ( Luke, Pref., p. Ixxvi). 
 See also footnote 28. 
 
 33 P. 8, "As it is written in the beginning of the gospel of our vivifier ;" p. 13, 
 "The word which is written in the gospel;" p. 321, "as was said in the gospel;" 
 P- 235, " as he says in his gospel ;" " what the Lord teaches in his gospel " (Bert's 
 edition). 
 
PRELIM IN A RY IN VES TIG A TIONS 29 
 
 nor ever mentioning the name of a single evangelist. (2) There are 
 harmonistic passages in his homilies which point in the same direction. 
 It is true we cannot control them all, since in many cases Ephraim is 
 wanting and the Arabic has no mixture.** He might, then, have harmon- 
 ized himself. But there are enough cases where he has the same mix- 
 ture as the Arabic or Ephraim, and also where he strings his quotations 
 together so as to follow closely the order of the Diatessaron. They 
 have been discussed by Zahn and Harris. (3) There is at least one 
 passage, Luke 16:28, where Aphraates and the Arabic T have an 
 unparalleled reading, caused by a primitive error in the Greek text, 
 oTTws Sta/xaprv/oT^Tat fused with SiafiapTavo) (Harris, p. 21). (4) Aphraa- 
 tes says that his gospel began, just as the Diatessaron, with John 1:1: 
 "In the beginning was the word." "As it is written tn the beginning 
 of the gospel of our vivifier : ' In the beginning was the word.' " Not 
 in the beginning of John's gospel — he never says that; but "in the 
 beginning of the gospel of our vivifier." (5) Add to these the fact 
 that there was no other harmony that he could have used ; that of 
 Ammonius being different and not used, so far as we know, in Syria, 
 while Tatian's Diatessaron was used; and (6) the fact that there are 
 some quotations which can best be explained on the assumption that 
 they were taken from Tatian's Diatessaron ; ^^ ^nd there can be no 
 reasonable doubt about Aphraates' use of the Diatessaron. 
 
 3^^. ^., Matt. 5: 15 ; Mark 4:21; Luke 8: 16; John 20 : 2, 13; Matt. 28 : 6 ; 
 Luke I? : 3, 4 ; Matt. 18:15 ff.; etc. 
 
 35 Matt. 5:4, " Blessed are they who mourn, for they shall be supplicated ;''' wapaKa- 
 Xetf is translated "supplicate." Luke 6 : 24, " Woe unto you rich, who have received 
 your petition," wapdKXrjan ; 16:25, "But now thou askest and he does not help 
 thee;" Ss, P^"And now he receives rest and thou art tortured;" Sc wanting. 
 Matt. 5 : 5, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the /and of lifey John i : 17, 
 " The truth of the law has come through Jesus." Matt. 15 : 19, "/« the heart are the 
 wicked thoughts." Luke 4 : 29, ware. KaTaKprjuvia-ai airriv, evidently taken to imply 
 that the Nazareth people actually threw Jesus over the cliff. 
 
 Here belong also some logiaof Jesus which we find neither in the separate gospels 
 nor in the Diatessaron as we have it in Ephraim and in the Arabic text. Did 
 Aphraates have also apocryphal gospels in addition to the canonical ? The passages 
 are : 
 
 1. "What I say to you in darkness, say ye in light, for among the heathen let 
 your light shine" (p. 9). The first sentence is a quotation from Matt. 10:27, and " for 
 among the heathen let your light shine" is similar to Matt. 5 : 16, " let your light so 
 shine before men." It is, then, a free quotation, not a new logion. 
 
 2. " Doubt not that ye may not sink down in the world as Simon, when he 
 doubted and began to sink down in the sea" (p. 15, Bert's edition). Of this Resch 
 says in his Agrapha (Texte und Untersuchungen, Vol. V, 4, p. 380) : " Der durchaus 
 
30 NEW TESTAMENT CANON IN SYRIAN CHURCH 
 
 But there are indications that he used also the separate gospels. 
 I. He has genealogies of Jesus which were not in the Diatessaron. 
 A comparison of the genealogies in Aphraates (=A) with those of Ss, 
 
 secundare Zusatz: wie Simon, da er anfing zti sinken itn Metre, lasstes auch wahrschein- 
 lich werden, dass die vorhergegangenen Worte : auf dass ihr nicht versinket in der 
 Welt, ebenfalls der Perikope Mt. 14:28-31 nachgebildet, mithin nicht original 
 sind, zumal da diese Perikope von dem versinkenden Petrus weder durch das petri- 
 nische Markusevangelium, Mc. 6:45-51, noch durch die johanneische Parallele, 
 Joh. 6 : 17-21, gedeckt wird. Als zweifellos echt bleibt im obigen Logion mithin nur der 
 Anfang : Zweifelt nicht! Diese Worte sind aber auch schon in den canonischen 
 Evangelien vorhanden: /ut; diaKpiOrjre, Mt. 21 :2i [which he has cited a little later]. 
 Am meisten klingt noch an den Aphraatestext Jac. i : 16." 
 
 3. " As it is written : The supplicant who offers his prayer must first examine his 
 gift well, if a stain be found on it, and then shall he offer it, that his sacrifice may not 
 remain on the earth" (Bert, p. 66). " Es ist doch wohl nur eine Nachbildung von Mt. 
 5 : 23, 24, die wir hier vor uns haben. Man vergleiche namentlich das dreimalige 
 Supov = ' Gabe ' in der kanonischen Parallele und die Ubereinstimmung in den 
 Worten /cat rare eKOuv 7rpo(T(pepe to Suypov <rov." (Resch, /. c, p. 442.) 
 
 4. " As it is written: Our Lord said: Pray and do not become weary" (Bert, p. 66); 
 Resch says : " Dieses Logion findet sich als Herrenwort nirgends im Canon. Wohl aber 
 bietet Lucas einen verwandten Text : eXe7ej' 5e irapa^oXrjv avrocs rrpos to deiv iravTOTt 
 irpoffevxeffdcLL kui. p-rj eyKaKeiv, Lc. 18 : i. Von mancher Seite ist diese lucanische 
 Bemerkung als ein von dem Evangelisten ex suis hinzugethaner iiberflussiger Zusatz 
 bezeichnet und der Ursprung dieses lucanischen Zusatzes in den paulinischen Aus- 
 driicken gesucht worden : pltj eyKaKi]iTaTe, 2. Thess. 3:13; M'? eyKaKup.€v, Gal. 6:9; dio 
 aiTovfmi p.r] eyKaKeiv, Eph. 3:13; ovk eyKaKovp.ev, 2. Cor. 4:1, 16. Durch das oben 
 angefiihrte Herrenwort wird der Sachverhalt gerade ins Gegentheil verkehrt. Die pauli- 
 nischen Parallelen sind Nachklange von diesem Herrenwort, und Lucas hat ebendas- 
 selbe Herrenwort irpo<revxfO'0e Kai p.r) eyKaKrjffare lediglich aus der direkten in die 
 indirekte Rede umgewandelt. indem er zugleich den urspriinglichen Standort jenes 
 Logion in der vorcanonischen Quelle deutlich erkennen lasst. Zu vergleichen ist auch 
 Herm. Mand., IX, 8, p. 104: 11, crv ouy p.r} SiaXiirrjs aiTovp.evos to aiTT)p,a ttjs ^vxV^ <''<"', 
 /cat \r)\f/ri avro, eai' 5e iKKUK-^a-QS /cat SLipvxW)^ aiTovp.evos, aeavrov aiTiw /cat firj tov 
 dtdovTa ffoi. Ubrigens schwanken in alien kanonischen wie auch in dieser Hermas- 
 Parallele die Lesarten zwischen CKKaKeiv und eyKaKeiv." (Pp. 297, 298.) 
 
 It is, however, just as well possible that Aphraates made the change from the 
 indirect into the direct form; or, what is still more probable, he found it so in Tatian's 
 Diatessaron. Aphraates' testimony is not sufficient to prove the assertion that this is 
 a word of Jesus. But in any case, even if Resch be correct, the use of this text does 
 not necessitate the opinion that Aphraates used an extra-canonical gospel beside the 
 Diatessaron. 
 
 5. " For it stands written thus : The good is destined to come, and well for him 
 through whom it comes ; and the evil is destined to come, but woe to him through 
 whom it comes." Resch compares with this : Dressel, Clementina Epitome prima, 
 chap. 96 : Kvpios t)plwv Ir/irous XpicrTos o utos tov 6eov ecpt]- Ta ayada e\0eiv 5ei, /xa/captot 
 5e, <p7j(nv, 5i' ov epx^Tai. op.oiws avayKrj Kai Ta /co/ca eX^eii', ouat de 5t' on epx^Tai, and 
 Dressel, Clementina Epitome secunda, chap. 96 : o /cupioj i;/uwv \i\<!ov% XpiaTot uiot 
 
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGA TIONS 3 1 
 
 Sc, P shows only one real difference^* in that long list of sixty-five names : 
 A has Jojakim and Jojakin, while Ss, Sc, P have Jechonja. It would be 
 extremely hazardous to deny on the basis of this one difference that A 
 took his genealogical lists from the separate gospels. His lists are not 
 exactly like either Ss, Sc, or P; now they approach this form, now that 
 form of the separate gospels f they are most closely related to Sc, where 
 Sc is extant. He had probably a copy which combined the different 
 readings or all three texts (perhaps also another ?). There is no 
 evidence for the existence of separate genealogical tables, and it is 
 therefore the most probable thing that A took his genealogies from 
 the separate gospels, especially in view of the fact that he ends them 
 with the remark that "Joseph was called the father of Jesus," which is 
 evidently a citation from Ss, where it occurs just so. If he used only 
 the Diatessaron, how could he know this, since Tatian omitted both 
 the genealogies and the references to the Davidic descent ? Strange 
 that he should use the same expression as Ss, when he made, as some 
 think, the tables himself on the basis of the Old Testament ! 
 
 2. There are, moreover, some quotations which Aphraates could 
 by no means have taken from Tatian, since they ran counter to Tatian's 
 belief and emphasized that which Tatian wanted to combat, viz., the 
 Davidic descent of Jesus. 
 
 Tou Oiov e<pr)- ra ayaOa eXdeiv 5e<, fuiKapios 5e, <pr]<TLV, 5C ov epx^Tai. Ofwiws /cat ra KaKa 
 avayKY] e\deiv, oi/a: 8e tw avdpwwct) 5i ov epx^Tat. Resch says : " Durch den von 
 Aphraates uberlieferten, ihm aus einer schriftlichen Autoritat zugeflossenen Text, 
 welcher mit dem Homilien-Citate (Horn. CI., XII, 29, p. 130, 35): tt;? aXTjtfeioi 
 ■irpo<pT)T7)s €<t>-r\- ra ayaOa eXdeiv Sei, fiaKapios 5e, (pr/ffiv, 5t' ov epxerar Ofwius xoi ra KaKa 
 avayKT) eKdeiv, owat 5e 81' ov epxerai — wortlich ubereinstimmt, erfahrt die Glite der in 
 den Clementinen fliessenden vorzuglichen Evangelienquelle eine neue Bestatigung. 
 Andrerseits wird durch diese Vergleichung mit dem Clementinen-Citate offenbar, 
 was man aus Aphraates allein nicht zu erkennen vermag, dass die von ihm citierte 
 schriftliche .\utoritat ein Herrenwort in sich schloss, fiir dessen Echtheit somit nunmehr 
 drei Zeugen : Paulus [Rm. 3:8], Pseudo-Clemens und Aphraates sich nachweisen 
 lassen, abgesehen von dem ersten und dritten kanonischen Evangelisten, welche die 
 zweite Halfte des Logion ebenfalls verwendet haben." 
 
 The only safe conclusion which we can draw from this is that Aphraates took 
 this logion from the Diatessaron. 
 
 There is absolutely no necessity to believe Jthat Aphraates used an apocryphal 
 gospel. All the differences may be accounted for otherwise quite satisfactorily. 
 Indeed, some of these passages form a negative argument for the fact that Aphraates 
 used the Diatessaron. 
 
 3*Arpakohar and Abiur of Ss are evidently copyists' errors : j for j. No. 13 
 A om., Ss Allan, P Cainan — very probably also om. by Sc, which is wanting here ; c/. 
 41-43, where the opposite case occurs. 
 
 37 30, A = Ss > P ; 32, A = P > Ss ; 41-43, A = Sc> Ss, P. 
 
32 NEW TESTAMENT CANON IN SYRIAN CHURCH 
 
 The first citation is already mentioned: "Joseph was called the 
 father of Jesus." 
 
 The second is: Luke 2:4, "Jesus was born by the virgin Mary 
 from the seed of the house of David, as it is written : Joseph and Mary 
 his betrothed zf(?r<? both from the house of David.'' Which statement was 
 not in the Diatessaron, but in the Sinaiticus. (P has the regular 
 Greek reading: "because he was of the house and lineage of David;" 
 Sc is missing.) 
 
 We have, then, in Aphraates (i) the genealogies and (2) the Davidic 
 descent of Jesus ; both matters were not in Tatian ; their text agrees 
 with that of the separate gospels ; consequently, Aphraates used in 
 addition to the Diatessaron the separate gospels. 
 
 But now the question arises : In which form does he use the sepa- 
 rate gospels, in the Sinaitic, Curetonian, or Peshitta text ? This 
 involves an examination of the different quotations which Aphraates 
 makes. The comparison now follows : 
 
 Matthew A 
 
 a: 
 
 
 
 om. 
 
 
 .oin^ oh.A:s£) 
 
 
 
 3: 
 4: 
 
 : 2 . aiL^oL.^ nr^ 
 : 1 1 \ik'^^ oL-tt^f 
 
 5: 
 5: 
 
 ; 3 ^a\-M.Of£> 
 : 13 gi »*\V 
 
 5 
 5 
 
 : 14 >Ora 
 :i8 \r^ UoZ\ ji- 
 
 
 but also 
 
 
 V::» 
 
 P 
 
 
 Ss 
 
 Sc 
 
 r^? 
 
 
 = A 
 
 = P 
 
 ail>o]^o 
 
 
 = P 
 
 = P 
 
 ©^-•:^5 'MlIso 
 
 
 = P 
 
 = P 
 
 .09L^ 
 
 
 = P 
 
 =r P 
 
 .oJoi 
 
 
 = P 
 
 = P 
 
 om. 
 
 
 om. 
 
 = A 
 
 om. 
 
 
 om. 
 
 om. 
 
 ^%D ](J10 
 
 x^^ 
 
 OSi-OO 
 
 = P 
 
 Ol2^ Q^fJ) 
 
 
 =Ss 
 
 w4»Oi.£ 
 
 
 = A 
 
 = A 
 
 
 
 = A 
 
 = A 
 
 = A 
 
 
 = A 
 
 )i*Sv 
 
 = A 
 
 
 >o,Jil. 
 
 = A 
 
 ) 4l.1n 
 
 
 = A 
 
 = A 
 
 = A 
 
 
 Ir^a^ 
 
 =Ss 
 
 p^ O] \f^ >CL* 
 
 
 := A 
 
 = A 
 but adds 
 
 1 ffl n \/l\ V/^ 
 
 = P = P 
 
 = A = A ysfUi Vsj 
 
Matthew 
 
 A 
 
 p 
 
 5:19 
 
 fS^o - -^SSn^ 
 
 
 
 ]fS>:^ 
 
 li-D^ 
 
 
 . '^\Vo ]f^j 
 
 ^jAlt ^V,o Vs 
 
 
 li-Di^ 
 
 l^iO 
 
 5:23 
 
 K '^'" r 
 
 ■ •^j nV? 'Va^oi c3iJ] 
 
 01 », ^o 
 
 PRELIM IN A R V INVES TIG A TIONS 3 3 
 
 Ss Sc 
 
 = P =Ss 
 
 but om. _fc? 
 
 = P = P 
 
 ^o = P 
 
 rest = P but om. — ^ 
 
 jja:* Vasoi ^] = P 
 except ^£Jtf) 
 
 »oCkZo ^Si-e-^? ^1 jii'^iSr'^J^.^JJSiJ M = P except >o,j5 for Vi^ 
 
 ^0-]? {cf. A) 
 
 £J| i-i-i.] ^a-.l ''Oi,? 'r^'i r^?-"^ ^^o ,-kai:i,Z(= A) 
 
 .^J^iof >-o-m A> >Cflo 1^^] >:|^ 1^ >f>3-i»1 ;*\S 1^^-:^] jtNs i^t-t^j i-^^] ^^r-^? 
 
 l^i.?^] >c,_Da^ else = P 
 
 5 : 29 om. )1 .\i.» = P = P 
 
 = P = A 
 
 = A = P 
 
 5:30 om. JToVi*? om. vs. 30 — P 
 
 5 ; 35 \^^ om. om. om. 
 
 = A = A V^ifi 
 
 >^ai ) > '"n "I? 
 
 = A A—I.Z = A 
 
 5 : 36 >>-^i-= Us]o «f-^r= i^^i f-^r^ U© = A 
 
 5:39-41 om. \\ *Sn«? =A =A 
 
 U^l = A [U^]] 
 
 = A = A jici? 
 
 om. = A = A 
 
 om. = A = A 
 
 . nml? .^Ic:^ ^®tJ? ~ ^ ( — p 
 
 '^^"^1^ (= A) s-amJo J 
 
 ovl. ^coi (71^ ^-o~n^ = P = P 
 
 om. '^^^.a-^ = A = P 
 
 6 : 6 }Jo£^ ^oiJi» = A = A 
 
 \ .ffl-''-' ) tm-i^? = A = A 
 
 Ulo >^a£]o = P = P 
 
 \y^ ) .m-> ) » W 1 -^i ll-M? = P + 001 = P 
 
 om. I ' '^ ^ ■^ = A = A 
 
34 
 
 NEiV TESTAMENT CANON IN SYRIAN CHURCH 
 
 Matthew A 
 
 P 
 
 Ss 
 
 Sc 
 
 6: 
 
 :8 
 
 "^f^ ooi ^osa^] 
 
 '^r* r^ ^^] 
 
 
 =Ss 
 
 
 
 oOo^U^Z }^fL^ 
 
 ^a-a^ U^^C^ ill£ 
 
 
 = P 
 
 
 
 ^n_-i,^ j^s^Vr ^^^ 
 
 >^gi.1nN|^Z )J,J^ 
 
 = A 
 
 =: P 
 
 6: 
 
 9 
 
 
 ^o:j] o:^^ 
 
 = A 
 
 = A 
 
 6: 
 
 12 
 
 (twice) ^s|o 
 
 ws]? jOa*] 
 
 missing 
 
 = P 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 = A 
 
 6: 
 
 19 
 
 
 
 missing 
 
 = A 
 
 
 20 
 
 '^ ^-^"^^ 
 
 
 missing 
 
 
 6: 
 
 cm. 
 
 om. 
 
 
 
 
 Us)o inns* 
 
 missing 
 
 = A 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • •ii /-, 
 
 
 
 = A 
 
 
 
 •ooiZ 
 
 
 only i_»^for o 
 
 
 
 ^] joaO 
 
 wS]o O01 
 
 
 = A 
 
 
 
 
 
 only diff. posit. 
 
 7 
 
 ;8 
 
 
 = A 
 
 missing 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^Jk£Lli ]XJ^O 
 
 
 
 
 
 ai:^ 
 
 (TL^ WM^uS^Llfi 
 
 
 rest = P 
 
 8 
 
 :8 
 
 cm. 
 
 
 = A 
 
 =: P 
 
 9 
 
 :28 
 
 ta\ rr^nC^ 
 
 
 = P 
 
 missing 
 
 
 
 r^l? 
 
 , nSVi\ ]9cn 
 
 W r^l? 
 
 
 9 
 
 :29 
 
 <^ lotnJ 
 
 .aal:;;^ )o(nJ j 
 
 = P 
 
 missing 
 
 10 
 
 :27 
 
 P] r^l? 
 
 = A 
 
 Ujicj, 
 
 missing 
 
 
 
 ^TlOi^o] 
 
 = A 
 
 y«01Oi^| 
 
 
 
 
 ]H-«"^ 
 
 = A 
 
 j^noLs 
 
 
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGA TIONS 
 
 35 
 
 Matthew 
 I I : 28-30 
 
 12:36 
 
 12:36 
 
 12 : 40 
 
 14:31 
 15:11 
 
 15:17 
 
 15: 19 
 
 A 
 
 om. 
 om. 
 
 c 
 
 ■ >Sro « 
 
 <^V.V 
 
 V 
 
 also = Ss, Sc 
 
 p 
 
 Ss 
 
 Sc 
 
 = A 
 
 oA 
 
 = A 
 
 
 = p 
 
 = P 
 
 = A 
 
 = A 
 
 Ur^^ 
 
 n\n n 4- 
 
 missing 
 
 = A 
 
 -i^ 
 
 = P 
 
 = P 
 
 ^-H^f 
 
 = P 
 
 = P 
 
 
 
 t\-inVo 
 
 = P 
 
 =Ss 
 
 ^01 X-fcixO 
 
 om. >*(n 
 
 
 = A 
 
 I^JxJlS 
 
 = A 
 
 = A 
 
 ^oWSnJ? 
 
 = A 
 
 ^Q:iiij 
 
 U^^ 
 
 ^Q^AJ 
 
 9ila.^J:!wS 
 
 ^al^^ 
 
 «.Vv. 
 
 = A )Zn\.\ 
 
 = A = A 
 
 > n*mVi ]sn-iq\ = P 
 
 i ^linS i>1|n\ oil. 
 
 om. aiX^ 
 
 ^1 t:^<Ji 
 
 om. 
 
 = P 
 = P 
 
 = P 
 
 = P 
 = P 
 
 = P 
 
 ^^v 
 
 £ls 
 
 = A 
 = A 
 
 = P 
 
 =Ss 
 
 = P 
 = P 
 
 = P 
 
 = P 
 
 = P 
 
 = P 
 
 = P 
 
36 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT CANON IN SYRIAN CHURCH 
 
 Matthew 
 17:19 
 
 \oa\Z 
 
 U^9 
 
 .^ ^"'^i " 
 
 18:3 1-^ ,^01 >fA 
 
 om. 
 
 but also = P, Ss, Sc 
 
 18:14 l^^(i.^)U 
 
 18: 15 
 
 18:16 
 
 18:17 
 
 om. 
 om. 
 
 01^ ' no n 4- 
 om. 
 
 om. 
 om. 
 
 q ^oi^i. 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 
 = A 
 
 = A 
 om. 
 = A 
 = A 
 
 cm. 
 ^^ ^1 
 
 om. 
 om. 
 = A 
 
 = A 
 
 = A 
 
 = A 
 
 >cas Vl> 
 
 o] 
 
 = A 
 
 Ss 
 
 Sc 
 
 ^]? 
 
 001 ^1? 
 
 Zooi L^] 
 
 1 091.^9 
 
 om. 
 
 = A 
 
 ? ^oZji^l 
 
 = A 
 
 p£ui.1. 
 
 )XiJ9 
 
 = A 
 
 )ja^gi "^ 
 
 om. 
 
 om. 
 
 = P 
 
 ^ r- t^l 
 
 
 
 = P 
 
 = P 
 
 = A 
 
 = A 
 
 om. 
 
 = A 
 
 om. 
 
 = A 
 
 ^91 as] 
 
 = A 
 
 -P(A) 
 
 = PCA) 
 
 = A 
 
 = A 
 
 ^] 
 
 .n 10 n| 
 
 VaflU 
 
 = A 
 
 = A 
 
 = A 
 
 = A 
 
 = P 
 
 = p 
 r= p 
 
 = A 
 
 = A, but om. 
 
 = P 
 
 = A 
 
 = P 
 
 = Ss 
 = P 
 = A 
 
 = A 
 *i t > 11 \oai2 
 
 = A 
 
PRELIM IN A R V IN VES TIG A TIONS 
 
 37 
 
 Matthew 
 l8 : 20 
 
 A 
 
 18:35 
 19: 28 
 21:38 
 
 21 :43 
 21 :44 
 
 22 : 27 
 
 18:21 om. 
 
 P 
 
 «^"^^ vs nA, 
 
 )]) 
 
 ^On2^^9 Z091 
 
 C'- Ss, Sc, vs. 30 
 om. 
 om. 
 
 22:29 w® 
 
 22 : 30 oai^j i-i^ ^ « N «i 
 
 ^^^ 
 
 P 
 
 |£^Z ol 
 = A 
 
 = A 
 
 API f^l'U 
 
 = A 
 
 "1 
 
 >AOia^99Z. 
 Z£uiJ^ .o^iIiibS) 
 
 = A 
 om. 
 
 = A 
 
 Us] 
 
 Ss Sc 
 
 = P = P 
 
 wC Ul li? = A 
 
 = A ^i^ 
 
 = A }] oi::* i^i 
 
 = A = A 
 
 = A = A 
 
 = A = A 
 
 = A = A 
 
 ]Zoi^ mZi-k 
 
 = A = P 
 
 f 
 
 omits this J except 
 verse 1 VsZ? for 
 
 v^9i ]Z^i >a9i (n^ 
 missing = P 
 
 r-^ 
 
 missmg 
 
 = A 
 = A 
 = A 
 
 = P 
 = Ss 
 = A 
 = A 
 Us| 
 
 = Ss 
 
 = p 
 
 = A 
 
 = p 
 
 = P 
 
 = p 
 
 =r P 
 
 om. 
 
 om. 
 
38 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT CANON IN SYRIAN CHURCH 
 
 Matthew A 
 
 P 
 
 Ss 
 
 Sc 
 
 22 : 30 -fA^. ''**>-J^ 
 
 ^1 !3] 
 
 missing 
 
 = P 
 
 ]aiX? 
 
 .oauȣhA] 
 
 
 ).Vi4>? 
 
 ]M>eu^? ).kl>so 
 
 om. 
 
 om. 
 
 om. 
 
 22:31 .nVnnI? 
 
 |2^? 
 
 £ui^ ^» ) 
 
 = P 
 
 \i:l^ 
 
 
 ]l^^ ) 
 
 
 ]^£uas 
 
 om. 
 
 om. 
 
 om. 
 
 ] *..,v«V ]«^ ^s^\^ 
 
 ^oa^ ^m, v^^ 
 
 loiX ■^]i I 
 
 = Ss 
 
 \jjija ^ 
 
 ^]? ]ai3^ ^ 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 = P 
 
 = P 
 
 
 
 = P 
 
 = A 
 
 ^ P 
 
 joffi y jov^ ](jio 
 
 = A 
 
 ]£^^:^? 
 
 ]Z^*ifi? f 
 
 
 
 i^V*'^^ 
 
 I--? v^ 
 
 = P 
 
 = P 
 
 
 
 
 
 23:15 ^'r^? 
 
 ^^i^^ 
 
 = P 
 
 = P 
 
 23:25,27 oij^ JAia:^ 
 
 ^oM -«^r^? 
 
 = P 
 
 missing 
 
 
 lia^l^o 
 
 = A 
 
 
 ^oM^-^^ 
 
 cf. first line 
 
 
 
 a^^o 
 
 •^? ^ 
 
 = A 
 
 
 1 > oi^ Ti ../-. }\nK jlv^ 
 
 Uaal4 Vso V 
 
 
 
 
 = P 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ]r=^ 
 
 = P 
 
 
 om. 
 
 ).,A.>r^l;o 
 
 = A 
 
 
 
 om. 
 
 = A 
 but om. 
 
 missing 
 
 ■ i") it^^g 
 
 24 : 20 
 
 25:34 
 
 
 • = A 
 
 = A 
 
 .o£u*09i 
 
 = P 
 
 missing 
 
 missing 
 
 missing 
 
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS 
 
 39 
 
 Matthew 
 
 A 
 
 P 
 
 Ss 
 
 Sc 
 
 25:35 
 
 
 ,<JJo£u<JlL30 
 
 £^091 OLty^ 
 
 missing 
 
 missing 
 
 
 l^^oJ 
 
 
 = P 
 
 
 25:37 
 
 V^ 
 
 Vi^ 
 
 = P 
 
 = P 
 
 
 25:40 
 
 >«r^? 
 
 U>a2? 
 
 missing 
 
 
 
 l-o't-o? 
 
 I'a:^! 
 
 
 
 
 ^1^, 
 
 om. 
 
 om. 
 
 
 25:41 
 
 om. 
 
 )ViS\> 
 
 = P 
 
 
 
 )i_ȣC^9 ^01 
 
 
 = A 
 
 
 
 |..^V 
 
 l^H^q 
 
 = P 
 
 
 25:44 
 
 ^i^ -£0^1 
 
 ^^:^] ^j:^ 
 
 = P 
 
 
 25:45 
 
 y^ offi 
 
 y, j^ioa? 
 
 001 ? 
 
 missing 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i'oi.i 
 
 \'>^\ 
 
 
 
 ^:^, 
 
 om. 
 
 om. 
 
 
 26:53 
 
 U^9 
 
 ol 
 
 = P 
 
 missing 
 
 
 w u^ ^i? 
 
 l:^]? M 
 
 = P 
 
 
 
 ^1^ 
 
 = A 
 
 ^1 ^ 
 
 
 
 ^Ui^5 u-.- 
 
 
 ,^ "^ivJo 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 = P 
 
 but om. i^oi 
 
 
 28: 19 
 
 0.0 Q.S 
 
 
 missing 
 
 missing 
 
 28:20 
 
 om. 
 om. 
 
 la. 
 
 missing 
 
 missing 
 
 >3li^9 i:>fif:^ giSnSn^N "S^r^ 
 
40 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT CANON IN SYRIAN CHURCH 
 
 Matthew 
 
 A 
 
 P 
 
 Ss 
 
 Sc 
 
 28 :20 
 
 but also : 
 
 ^sa:^, 
 
 missing 
 
 missing 
 
 Mark 
 
 A 
 
 p 
 
 Ss 
 
 Sc 
 
 5:41 
 
 )-^ )-^ 
 
 u:^ 
 
 missing 
 
 missing 
 
 9:24 
 
 ^i^^ 
 
 om. 
 
 = A 
 
 missing 
 
 
 ^ZnTSn»gi2^ 
 
 Zo\ t w mN 
 
 
 missing 
 
 
 U»aLl 
 
 ../aIVw .m 
 
 
 
 16:16 
 
 ^_:>a^(nl£9 r^? 
 
 „_v^i^cnV£, )ju] 
 
 om. this 
 
 missing 
 
 
 ^OO \.M^ |J^Q^O 
 
 
 conclusion 
 
 
 
 
 
 of Mark 
 
 
 
 ^?Z£^ 
 
 ■ '^^ '■'^^ 
 
 
 
 16 : 17 
 
 ]oa\Z ]Z| l»(3i 
 
 ^? l^oZ] 
 
 omits 
 
 missing 
 
 r 
 
 
 = A 
 
 
 = A-\-~^ 
 
 
 om. 
 
 
 
 = A 
 
 
 .ooaO \j\^ 
 
 jy).^ .v/^^*^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 )1>N^? 
 
 ] 1 A.V.SO 
 
 
 h.s^ 
 
 
 .oooO .oen-»|.^]o 
 
 .0(71^'i^]o 
 
 
 = P, but 
 
 
 joi-k-^ ''^^ .oSn.wl 
 
 
 position of 
 words is 
 
 
 
 
 
 different 
 
 Luke 
 
 A 
 
 P 
 
 Ss 
 
 Sc 
 
 I : 13 
 
 :^v:^^ ) 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^^^^( 
 
 = A 
 
 ^'^Jafl-*. H-^i*^ 
 
 missing 
 
 
 ]0lX >0,-D 
 
 om. 
 
 
 
 1:30 
 
 ]aiX >c,_D 
 
 ]3iX zq:^ 
 
 missing 
 
 missing 
 
 I 148 
 
 giZn-itiVi-o 
 
 |>,^^v^^ 
 
 = A 
 
 missing 
 
 2:4 
 
 >a^i^o y.aisa.^9 j 
 
 
 
 
 
 .O0U»VZ giZ^ t nV> > 
 
 = W-H 
 
 = A 
 
 missing 
 
 
 ^099 en£w«^ — ^ ) 
 
 
 
 
 2:14 
 
 ).\n^^ v->V^ 
 
 |A^nnA>Z 
 
 
 missing 
 
 
 Uk^Vs \h^:LSL^Zo 
 
 >co^ lollop 
 
 >coi.:»aD loi^ll 
 
 
 
 
 i^iN*. M V^o 
 
 )^iVs >qV^o 
 
 
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGA TIONS 
 
 41 
 
 Luke 
 2:14 
 
 3:8 
 
 6 : 24 
 6:30 
 6:45 
 
 A 
 
 but also : 
 
 
 ^*J) Vo^ 
 
 \' 
 
 but also = P 
 7: 14 1'^-'^^ |Sn«\S 
 
 >OQ_0 
 
 8:52 001 jViiVi 
 
 9 : 59, 60 .^Zalu Izjo 
 
 10: 19 
 
 12 : 19 
 
 om. 
 
 
 Ss 
 
 Sc 
 
 missing 
 
 ^oS*.^Ss(P^U'a^^) 
 I .^/^^»^^ twice in A, neither in P nor Ss 
 ]A ^^ ^ A., / from P 
 j^?)^ from Ss 
 {.^ ]^.£i» from P 
 {.▲J] >»1n\ from Sc 
 
 aiasZ? = A 
 
 om. .a.s 1-ka.s 
 
 = p 
 
 = Ss except 
 
 (= A, P) 
 missing 
 
 missing 
 
 = A 
 
 the same in the 
 parallel Matt. 9 : 24 
 
 om. 
 
 o£ukOOI9 
 
 V 
 
 I 1 . V « • . ffl .. 
 
 = P 
 
 = P 
 
 in Matt. 9 : 24 
 = A 
 
 om. 
 
 r= P 
 
 = p 
 = p 
 ^ p 
 
 missmg 
 
 missmg 
 
 = A 
 
 missing in 
 Matt. 
 
 \Ao 
 
 = P 
 
 = P 
 
 = Ss 
 
 = Ss 
 = P 
 = P 
 = A 
 
42 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT CANON IN SYRIAN CHURCH 
 
 Luke 
 
 A 
 
 P 
 
 Ss 
 
 Sc 
 
 12:19 
 
 >c,ie Mai 
 
 
 
 =Ss 
 
 
 ]090 
 
 — aooO 
 
 = P 
 
 = P 
 
 12 : 21 
 
 ).lsai9 
 
 001 )J^(71 
 
 = P 
 
 = P 
 
 14:11 
 
 >a*?Z£J? (^) Vs 
 
 H-N5,>^r>? '^ 
 
 = P 
 
 = P 
 
 
 v^IlI? ''**.jo 
 
 
 = P 
 
 = P 
 
 14:12 
 
 ^£0^]? 
 
 Jv^ 
 
 = P 
 
 = P 
 
 
 0] UojJi 
 
 = A 
 
 cm. 
 
 = A 
 
 
 ]r^^ 
 
 \:f£i ]ooiZ 
 
 = A 
 
 = A 
 
 
 r^^^f^ 
 
 
 =r A 
 
 = P 
 
 
 >^.^i^y oj 
 
 e] .^1 Us] 
 
 
 1 
 
 = Ss 
 
 1 
 
 
 Usio 
 
 13o 
 
 = P 
 
 = P 
 
 
 ,•*-.*-<*. 
 
 = A 
 = A 
 
 
 = Ss 
 
 
 \^h^ 
 
 = A]i 
 
 ^£^?^^:i^] 
 
 
 
 
 
 ,^1 
 
 
 p? 
 
 l'^:^? 
 
 = P 
 
 = p 
 
 
 po, 
 
 = A 
 
 = A 
 
 om. 
 
 14:13 
 
 ^£^1 
 
 li^ 
 
 = P 
 
 = P 
 
 
 om. 
 
 Usoj. 
 
 ]K.\r.^^] 
 
 
 
 ).T,aMSn\ 
 
 = A 
 
 = A 
 
 = A 
 
 
 i4 0^901^0 
 
 '■^ 
 
 
 l^ailv^o 
 
 
 ^11^^ 
 
 yrrC^- 
 
 ) m . ^..N 
 
 
 jSfl^M 
 
 ] nnVi\o 
 
 j -1 nVi\o 
 
 
 
 
 1 .VrnV^Vr, 
 
 
 
 
 
 IV-^ Pr-]o 
 
 
 14: 14 
 
 jotnJo 
 
 j-^joffO 
 
 = A 
 
 = A 
 
 
 l-a-?! >a:^ 
 
 J^?!? 
 
 = P 
 
 = P 
 
 15:7 
 
 ^o£J? 
 
 ^)z> 
 
 ^ P 
 
 = P 
 
 
 ^ r^^ 
 
 Vi. 0] 
 
 = P 
 
 = A 
 
 
 Vl. ^.intlw 
 
 ^ooili. \j^i^h:i£> 
 
 = A 
 
 = P 
 
 16: 9 
 
 jJai 
 
 = A 
 
 om. 
 
 :^ A 
 
 
 
 ^Qgi iNN^Sn^ 
 
 ,oai-»^::i4ia^ 
 
 = A 
 
 16:14 position of phrases 
 
 = A 
 
 different 
 
 missing 
 
 16: 20 
 
 (jiI^^Z ^0^ 
 
 (nL,9Z Zal^ 
 
 = P 
 
 missing 
 
PRELIMINARY IxNVESTIGATIONS 
 
 43 
 
 Luke 
 l6 : 21 
 
 loai 
 om. 
 
 16:22 ]ooi» 
 
 16 : 23 \on\ ilc9o 
 
 16:24 >CLl.^ 
 
 <4^ >:::4iJc 
 
 16:25 »(jii, 
 
 o 
 
 31.110 £u4l^ 
 
 V 
 
 p 
 
 
 Ss 
 
 Sc 
 
 091 ^a^)-ȣc^o 
 
 looi 
 
 -^K'^' 
 
 missing 
 
 om. 
 
 
 om. 
 
 
 ]ZoZ-^ ^ 
 
 1 
 
 — A 
 
 
 ,_*1^'=l1? 
 
 ( 
 
 
 
 ^] HI 
 
 
 ws]o 
 
 
 .n^Vv, 
 
 
 = P 
 
 
 T^? ]c<n 
 
 
 jooio 
 
 missing 
 
 «.aJZ!^.«lo ^0 
 
 = A.butom.jooi 
 
 missing 
 
 '^'■' - '-'^ 
 
 
 = p 
 
 
 {.0^07 — ^ 
 
 ^aJ^-*^ ^ 
 
 sZo^ .,-llc 
 
 
 = P 
 except ).alc 
 after inst.of 
 before .oj nSl? 
 and ^^? 
 for _^ 
 
 missmg 
 
 issmg 
 
NEW TESTAMENT CANON IN SYRIAN CHURCH 
 
 A 
 
 
 44 
 
 Luke 
 19:8 
 
 19:9 
 
 20:35 ■'::*^1? 
 
 om. 
 
 ^001 Ir^a^ Us] 
 
 20 : 36 AV/^v/^V* ^M^^ 
 
 . .. >^ A V^ |] 
 ^1 PI 
 
 om. 
 om. 
 
 20:38 0(31^i»3» '^MCao 
 
 21:23 ]^)J 
 
 091 
 
 23 : 4.3 -'^^ )lVin *> 
 
 (twice) ^jJs. £0^ 
 
 P 
 = A 
 
 >-£oZ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 Us] 
 
 Ltf A'^^^V _A 
 
 Ss 
 = A 
 
 = A 
 
 ^?^^^ 
 = A 
 
 = A 
 
 om. 
 
 = P 
 
 but om. wsjo 
 
 lis] 
 
 »] .om^ a^o£^.^] 
 
 »^ 
 
 >^r^ 
 
 Sc 
 = A 
 
 = Ss 
 
 = A 
 = Ss 
 
 = A 
 = P 
 = P 
 
 = Ss 
 = Ss 
 
 om. j-Of ^\ j^ll^tf ]tn^7 ).dJ-S 
 
 \= 
 
 *M 
 
 )o(nJ 
 pai 
 
 = A 
 
 = P = P 
 
 = P = P 
 
 :^ P = P 
 
 = A ^*:ia:^9 )Xaoa^ 
 
 = P = A 
 
 John A 
 
 I : 5 (twice) |otn ^siJU^ 
 
 1:14 (twice) Zooi ]i-^ 
 
 I :5I fS 
 
 2:19 poi lla^t'i 
 
 ^©^] ^Vm? 
 
 3:12 
 
 
 p 
 
 O9oAJ0 
 
 pal )la^ai 
 
 om. 
 
 Ss 
 missing 
 
 missing 
 
 Sc 
 = A 
 
 = A 
 
 missmg 
 
 missmg 
 
 missing 
 
 missing 
 
 = P 
 
 missing 
 
 ILa^si 
 
 
 missing 
 
 missing 
 
 = A 
 
 
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS 
 
 45 
 
 John 
 
 A 
 
 p 
 
 Ss 
 
 
 Sc 
 
 3 
 
 : 12. 
 
 
 
 
 
 missing 
 
 
 
 ^] ^ U^l . ^oial 
 
 ^ U^l 
 
 V:.^]r^] 
 
 
 = Ss 
 
 
 
 ,-.::^l Vi. ^aa:^. 
 
 
 ).Sn>-?^^^.^| 
 
 Ss, 
 fro 
 
 Sc differ 
 
 
 
 m A only 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 in 
 
 the posi- 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^alia-5iZ ^1 
 
 .nnlSntTiZ 
 
 v"^ M ^\ 
 
 tion and in 
 the suff. of 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ajiiiA-kjiZ 
 
 the 
 
 ; last word 
 
 3 
 
 :i3 
 
 ^lii 
 
 Ul 
 
 = P 
 
 
 = P 
 
 
 
 JOOI ^310lukj» 
 
 ^OlO^Uftj) 
 
 = P 
 
 
 = A 
 
 
 
 ) .^/,*^ 
 
 = A 
 
 Uifl^ ^ 
 
 
 = A 
 
 3 
 
 :34 
 
 JAS.n^ 
 
 u^^ 
 
 
 = A 
 
 
 
 v^nof] ot^ 
 
 ]9lX 
 
 M l<nX 
 
 
 missing 
 
 
 
 also \ci\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 :35 
 
 
 
 missing 
 
 
 >Q-i»^ 
 
 
 
 V= >a^^]o 
 
 ^S9L^ >0|^ 'VsO 
 
 
 
 = P 
 
 
 
 This variation in A 
 
 is due to the verse in Matt. 21 : 
 
 27. 
 
 which he 
 
 
 
 quotes immediately 
 
 following this. 
 
 
 
 
 5: 
 
 22 
 
 u ^q M 
 
 W i-^joa, q j 
 
 ( =Sc 
 
 
 = A 
 
 
 
 vV 
 
 >-^y vl? i 
 
 1 
 
 on 
 
 ily adding 
 
 
 
 
 
 = A 
 
 
 = A 
 
 5: 
 
 :25 
 
 
 
 missing 
 
 
 = P 
 = A 
 = P 
 
 5: 
 
 28, 
 
 29 .3.^0 
 
 om. 
 
 missing 
 
 
 = A 
 
 om. 
 
 6: 
 
 55 
 
 ^ 
 
 = A 
 
 
 
 Qj^ 
 
 
 
 -i-^ ^ 
 
 -He 
 
 = P 
 
 
 = P 
 
 
 
 v^IaO? ^^ 
 
 >^^9 
 
 = P 
 
 
 = P 
 
 6: 
 
 59 
 
 u. 
 
 Uj 
 
 = A 
 
 
 = P 
 
 7: 
 
 371 
 
 (twice) jcn^? Vs? 
 
 1.1^ ^1 ^1 
 
 '"i? ^ 
 
 
 = Ss 
 
 : 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 = A 
 
 
 missing 
 
46 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT CANON IN SYRIAN CHURCH 
 
 John 
 10 : II 
 
 lo: i6 
 
 lo: 17 
 
 10:30 
 II :23 
 
 1 1 :26 
 
 12 :26 
 12:35 
 
 13:8 
 13:9 
 
 13: 10 
 13: 12 
 
 13: 14 
 
 01 4°i1 \^a\^ 
 oU^i JLs] Vi. 
 
 om. 
 
 U^ 
 
 jx^, Us] Vl |j] 
 (twice) ,_!-. 
 
 ■'•'" "] >ca.aJ 
 
 om. 
 
 i4 
 
 13] 
 
 cm. 
 
 001 
 
 ^o£J] ^jJ ]ai 
 .nn\ )]o 
 
 cm. 
 
 cm. 
 ]j<n 'M^^ 
 
 Ss 
 
 Sc 
 
 = A 
 
 missing 
 
 om. 
 
 missing 
 
 missing 
 
 missing 
 
 = A 
 
 missing 
 
 = A 
 
 missing 
 
 om. 
 
 
 -2^ \ 
 
 = A 
 
 |J] >oIjc \lh 
 
 = A 
 
 w 
 
 j.sn A t> )]) 
 = A 
 
 001 
 
 cm. 
 
 ,ot^- 
 
 ^oZU] ^jji ^oiJ] 
 = A 
 
 V 
 
 o^] . i ni M 
 
 ^1^] 
 
 missing 
 
 except 't^n >i] 
 
 = A 
 
 = A 
 
 = P 
 
 .CLasjfJ )]^ 
 
 \^ 
 
 0001Z .O^]) 
 
 \" 
 
 v^^-C^^? 
 
 = A 
 = A 
 = A 
 ^o 
 = A 
 = A 
 
 • r^ 
 
 = P 
 
 = A 
 = A 
 om. 
 = A 
 
 = A 
 = A 
 
 but ^t for » 
 
 missmg 
 
 missing 
 
 missing 
 missing 
 
 missing 
 missing 
 missing 
 missing 
 missing 
 missing 
 
 missmg 
 missing 
 
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS 
 
 47 
 
 John 
 
 A 
 
 13: 
 
 :34 
 
 iL£Xt^Z.i 
 
 14: 
 
 : 2 
 
 UoUl 
 
 14: 
 
 : 3 (twice) hA 
 
 
 
 ^i 
 
 14: 
 
 23 
 
 
 14: 
 
 27 
 
 .*\*, 
 
 '5: 
 
 : 12 
 
 -iVit«; 
 
 (several 
 
 times) 
 
 19: 
 
 36 
 
 
 20: 
 
 13 
 
 
 V 
 
 oh^orni 
 
 "^ "^-^ 
 
 = A 
 
 = A 
 om. 
 
 Ss 
 
 Sc 
 
 .OO01Z7 
 
 missing 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 = A 
 
 missing 
 
 = A 
 
 missing 
 
 = A 
 
 
 = A 
 
 Ml \A 
 
 r^^ 
 
 r^l 
 
 oni. 
 
 om. 
 
 ^ P 
 
 missing 
 
 missmg 
 
 = P 
 = P 
 = P 
 
 missmg 
 
 missing 
 missing 
 missing 
 
 The comparison printed here shows that the text of Aphraates is in 
 53 cases like that of P, in 91 = Ss, in 76 = Sc, and in a great many 
 others different from all three. 
 
 Now, subtract from the number of cases where A =^ P all those 
 cases where either Ss or Sc is missing, or both, and where one might 
 reasonably suppose that the texts agreed with P and A. Subtract 
 also those cases from P's number where either Ss or Sc is together 
 with P= A. Take into consideration all possible amount of free quo- 
 tation, and the result is that in spite of it all there are enough 
 passages left which show that Aphraates knew and used the Peshitto 
 text of the four gospels. 
 
 Apply the same process of subtraction, with the appropriate modifi- 
 cations, to Ss and Sc, and the result is that Aphraates knew and used the 
 text of both Ss and Sc in his quotations from the gospels. 
 
 This is a rather remarkable and unexpected result of the compari- 
 son, yet the proof is /uce clarius. 
 
 But how are we to explain this fact that Aphraates used the 
 Diatessaron, the Peshitto, Ss, and Sc ? It may be that he had a text 
 of the separate gospels which had combined the readings of Ss and 
 Sc and P ; and for this the peculiarities in the text of Aphraates might 
 lend at least a slender foundation. I mean such little matters as the 
 frequent use of ,Ji^» in A, which is not so often in P, Ss, Sc ; or the 
 
48 NEW TESTAMENT CANON IN SYRIAN CHURCH 
 
 very frequent use of » for other prepositions, e. g., V^Cao , ^u^, and _*> ; 
 or the use of the plural where the other texts have the singular. But 
 all these differences may be due to Aphraates' loose method of 
 quoting passages. Moreover, the suggestion is only a conjecture, and 
 cannot be substantiated. Perhaps some discovery may throw fresh 
 light on this problem. 
 
 The easiest solution seems to me something like the following : 
 Aphraates, the bishop of the monastery of Mar Mattai, was an educated 
 man. One may deny that he was a fine scholar ; that he was an earnest 
 and diligent Bible student none will question who has read his 
 homilies. If anyone, he must have known and used the text of the 
 separate gospels. One has only to remember that the ground text of 
 Ss was made already in the second century, and Sc certainly not later 
 than 250 A. D., if not about 200 A. D. These two he evidently used 
 privately for his Bible study. Now about the Peshitto. Suppose it 
 had come into existence about his time (340 A. D.). As bishop he 
 must have become at once familiar with the new work, be it that he 
 met it on his visits in his diocese, where perhaps the priests might use 
 it here or there, or be it that the translation was at once shown to him, 
 the bishop, when it was completed. However that may be, his exten- 
 sive use of it favors rather an earlier date for the origin of the Peshitto. 
 We have, then, in Aphraates nothing else than this : a man who faith- 
 fully studies the Bible in the Diatessaron as well as in the three 
 versions existing in his time, writes some homilies, and here, in quoting 
 from memory (there is no doubt that he did that), quotes now from 
 this, now from that text, apparently without being conscious that he 
 is doing something extraordinary. 
 
 This shows us very clearly that the text was not yet settled in the 
 Syrian church. The church had not yet said : " This is our text, 
 not that." We are still in the period of formation, and considerable 
 fluctuation is seen. The strife for the supremacy of the text has not 
 yet broken out openly, but it is about to do so ; the Diatessaron is no 
 more exclusively used ; on the contrary, the separate gospels seem to 
 have been made more use of. Which of the two parties is going to 
 win ? If the separate gospels, which of the three will carry off the 
 victory ? The answer we find in the next few decades, during which 
 Ephraim wrote. 
 
 5. TAe Gospels in Ephraim. 
 
 Rev. F. H. Woods has collated the quotations of Ephraim, 
 and published the results of his investigation in the Studia Biblica et 
 
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS 49 
 
 Ecclesiastica (Oxford, 1891), Vol. Ill, pp. 105 ff., under the title, 
 " An Examination of the New Testament Quotations of Ephraem 
 Syrus." Since he has given the variations from the Peshitta, etc., in 
 full on pp. 120 ff., "Quotations from the New Testament in Ephraem 
 Syrus compared with the Peshitta," etc., I refer to that comparison as 
 the basis of the following assertions, though the conclusions of his 
 article differ from my own. 
 
 First of all, it is at once plain that Ephraem knew and used the 
 Diatessaron. He wrote a commentary on it, as we know. Besides, 
 the many passages given in Mr. Woods' list where combinations of the 
 different gospels are found to show the same. There can be no doubt 
 that he used the Diatessaron. But it is also clear that he did not use 
 it frequently in his other works outside of the commentary on it. 
 Most of his quotations are taken from the Peshitta. That was his 
 main text. One sees at once that he uses it much more than Aphraates 
 did. But P was not the only, though the principal, version from which 
 he quoted. There are citations whose text is like Sc and Ss, and differ- 
 ent from P. 
 
 So is in Matt. 3: 17 and 17:5 the curious reading of Ephraim 
 «n.nMO instead of ) ^ - ^ - (P) found in Sc as well as in Ss. Similarly 
 21 : 38 was cited from Sc or Ss, not from P. — Matt. 5 : 39 and Luke 
 6:29a are taken from Sc, not from P, Ss ; so also Matt. 16:26, 
 Mark 8 : 36, and Luke 9:25 ?z|J = Sc against P and Ss. — Luke 10 : 24 
 is quoted from Sc, not from P or Ss. — John i : 3 is as clear a case as 
 one might wish to show that Ephraim used also Sc ; here Ephraim 
 agrees in three points with Sc, while he differs in those points from P. 
 
 Evidences for the fact that Ephraim used also Ss are such passages 
 as Matt. 10:6 (Sc is wanting), where Ephraim omits with Ss against P 
 £u»li-»i-. , and Ss writes for o,^]? of P Z^:^^?, Ephraim ^11^?.— Matt. 
 20: 22 = Mark 10:38, where P has .oZ^|-ik, Uio .o£^,»» }] (in both 
 passages), Sc agrees with P in Matt. 20 : 22, is missing in Mark 10 : 38, 
 but Ss writes in both passages exactly like Ephraim .o£«JJ .v . }J 
 ^oZU] ,--J:i»U. \Xic . — Luke 11 : 2, P = Sc, but Ephraim omits with Sc 
 
 ) tVi**^? . Also the best Greek MSS. omit 17/^0)1/ 6 kv rdi<i oipavoU. 
 
 In John 17:11 (Sc wanting) Ss writes with Ephraim ^ , P j^) , though 
 adding with P U-.,_d , which Ephraim omits ; but Ss inserts, just as 
 Ephraim, before j^ the word ^aie . 
 
 These passages make it clear that Ephraim used, besides his 
 Peshitta text, also the Curetonian and Sinaitic texts. It may be that 
 he had a text which combined the readings of all three texts, such as 
 
50 NEW TESTAMENT CANON IN SYRIAN CHURCH 
 
 we see it, for instance, in Luke 14:31, where he combines the reading 
 of P, Ss, Sc, and reads both (P) oijjeu* |Ji-.| (Ss, So). Or it may be 
 that he read all three texts side by side, and in quoting from memory 
 used now this, now that text. 
 
 It is not at all necessary that Ephraim knew the differences 
 between the Syriac and Greek texts, or that he had a Greek text before 
 him. All the quotations are easily accounted for by attributing them 
 to these three, or better four, sources, T, P, Ss, Sc. 
 
 We see that even in Ephraim the text of the gospels is not yet 
 settled. He still uses the Diatessaron, but it is no longer the main 
 text. The victory in the battle between the two sets of texts, the 
 harmony and the separate gospels, has turned toward the latter. 
 Still, the final step is not yet taken. The one is not absolutely 
 defeated, the other not yet alone in the field. No final decision is 
 reached as yet. 
 
 And between the three texts of the separate gospels the relative 
 positions are different now. Aphraates uses more Ss and Sc than P, 
 but Ephraim quotes far more from P than from Ss and Sc combined. 
 Ss and Sc are still used by him, are still influencing his citations, but 
 his main text is P. But also here, though there is a strong tide in 
 favor of P, a decision is not yet reached. But what it will ultimately 
 be is already clear. Ephraim points too clearly the way to be mis- 
 leading. 
 
 II. THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES AND THE EPISTLES. 
 
 /. In the Doctrina Addai. 
 
 The Doctrina Addai speaks of the Acts of the Apostles and the 
 epistles as follows : " But the law, and the prophets, and the gospel, 
 which ye read every day before the people, and the epistles of Paul, 
 which Simon Peter sent us from the city of Rome, and the Acts of the 
 twelve apostles, which John, the son of Zebedee, sent us from Ephesus ; 
 these books read ye in the churches of Christ, and with these read not 
 any others, as there is not any other in which the truth that ye hold is 
 written, except these books, which retain you in the faith to which ye 
 have been called." (P. 44.) 
 
 There are no quotations made either from the Acts of the Apostles 
 or from the epistles of Paul, a fact which is in harmony with the pur- 
 pose of the book. The catholic epistles and the Revelation are not 
 included in the canon of the church. 
 
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGA TIONS 5 I 
 
 The bearing of the quotations on the history of the canon may better 
 be discussed under the reconstruction of the history of the canon later 
 on. Here it suffices to have quoted the testimony and the extent of 
 the canon as given in the Doctrina Addai. 
 
 2. In Aphraates. 
 
 Aphraates quotes from the Acts of the Apostles several times. Of 
 Paul's epistles he quotes Romans, i and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 
 Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, i Thessalonians, i and 2 Timothy, 
 and Titus; the letter to the Hebrews is also cited as Pauline through- 
 out. He does not cite 2 Thessalonians and Philemon. There is no 
 trace of the catholic epistles and the Revelation. The passages cited 
 by Wright as referring to i Peter 4:18 and i John 3 : 24 ; 4:15 have 
 been shown by Zahn not to refer to those passages. In the first pas- 
 sage it is a citation from " Solomon " (Prov. 11 : 31); the other citation 
 is evidently taken from the gospel of John, and not from the epistle. 
 Strangely enough, Parisot and Gwynn still maintain, with no ground 
 that he uses i John, and they infer from it his use of the rest. 
 
 The extent of his canon as regards Acts and the epistles of Paul 
 is the same as that of the Doctrina Addai. He quotes a good deal 
 from them, most of his quotations being from i Corinthians. 
 
 Whether Aphraates' epistle text is the same as that of the Peshitta 
 or not is a question which we must now seek to answer. The Peshitta 
 has, in addition to the epistles of Paul, also the epistle of James, i 
 Peter, and i John, which Aphraates has not. Is his epistle text, in spite 
 of this, the same as that of the Peshitta, which might not yet have had 
 these epistles in Aphraates' time, or is it different? This necessitates 
 
 A Comparison of the Acts and Epistles in Aphraates with those of the Peshitta. 
 
 Acts 14:22, A li--^ |J^o)j=, P \ch M^oU. The Greek has 8ta 
 
 TToXAwv ^Xii/'cwi' = A. — 19:3, A riViWi^ r,i-^^>^? ©r^jo .oZ,_J»o_^» 0(jO]< 
 
 Rom. I : 3, 4, A (introduced by 75UC \ tt*\A.o) >-i ^\ V _i£ ) -- ^'^ ''^a.*-*) 
 |-fc.?sji» U.oi^ y-»o> ^.as? )^?-| ,_i^ |o(3i , P ,_i^ jjins r^-^l? o<^ ""r^ ''^^ 
 
 h,A£> ^^ >a£) -A.0,-0 ^.MOj^O '\-*-ii£ 131^9 \t-^ "^i-kZlc |-k09 £u>^9 j^i] 
 
 ♦''^Q.A-k \'Ljl:a . The quotation is free, but in the main there is agreement. There 
 is a difference between Joti >3-ki^ — :»c and ;"^^ ,.lii^Z|) and in j-^ojjs 
 i.A»Q_o» and wA,o,_D -moj-c . And here it is to be noticed that the Greek 
 
52 NEW TESTAMENT CANON IN SYRIAN CHURCH 
 
 yevofievov could be translated either way, and also that the reading of )-i»o^ 
 ].M.9a^9 is a more literal translation of the Greek Kara Trvev/Aa ctytwo-wi;; than 
 the reading of P «_^Ofj ^^cj^ . — 5:14, Aphraates read here a different text 
 from P. He omits at first the phrase, "in the likeness of the transgression of 
 the law of Adam," and affixes vs. 12, "so that it [death] has also come over 
 all men, as it has come over Adam." But a few lines later he says in sum- 
 ming up : "Also over those who did not sin did death reign because of the 
 transgression of the law of Adam ;" which shows, taken in connection with 
 the first quotation, that the Greek cttI tw ofioKofxart was differently translated. 
 — 7 : 5, A reads liJfl^? = " carnal ;" P reads j;"^*" = " in the flesh ;" A omits 
 i-u^ and jjcaicJLs? . A reads jooiJ, P ^.iJ. So A translates: "When we 
 were carnal, the passions of the sins were active in our members, so that 
 we were [or became] fruits for death." P = "When we were in the flesh, the 
 passions of the sins which are through the law were active in our members 
 that we should brittg fruits unto death." The Greek has €v rrj aapKL as P, 
 but some MSS. have rrj crapKt. The eis to KapTro<fioprj(TaL tw OavaTw may 
 have been differently translated. — 8 : ga, A reads -«*o^» , P ■-^oj^ ; A |-i»e» 
 ] ^' -■^«. P |auX? ai^ob ; A ^, P Ijia:^. — 8 ; g^^, A, "the Spirit of Goif," 
 but P, "the Spirit of Christ," thus reversing the order of vss. ga and gd. This 
 again is paralleled by other Greek MSS. 
 
 I Cor. 1:27-30, A adds .03i_c ; A ](rL*-ji , P jV/^Vv* ^(jiootjj . — 1:28, 
 A Vf^^o i^aici^ v^y * M m , P jSiNs-^ .001^910^ j »i *"? ; A j iSmSne , 
 p ) .VMy^V^ . — I : 29, A jauX >c,-D , P ^(jiaio,_D . Most Greek MSS. = A, 
 but some = P htnTTLov avrov. — i : 30, A .oU] a0^9 , P ^7 .oIO) -s| 
 ) " ' ^ '^ '5^Q_4^t£ .oZ^J] (nXiO . In vs. 30 A seems to be a more concise render- 
 ing of the Greek ii avrov Sc v/u,ets ea-re, while P is more intent here to 
 give the Greek construction. — 3:16 (three times), "Ye are the temple of 
 God, and the Spirit of Christ dwells in you," \ -- *^'^* (ji-i»o9o , P (n-i»oJo 
 ](n_X? .— 7:26, A jv^Vv^. , P )j^i, ; [A ^«AS , P ^.-JLS?] ; A ^.J^^ , 
 P I ^i^ ^V . Both A as well as P are attempts to render into Syriac the 
 
 Greek 8ia t^v eveo-Twcrav dvayKjjv. — g : 5, A \m^ , P ]ZiJ] ]£wi» . Aphraates 
 adds uji)") jlo m >cu:» }] P] . The reading of A, "wives," yrvatKas instead 
 of the more common reading aSe\cf>r)v yvvaiKa, which is represented by P, 
 is paralleled, as is well known, by other witnesses ; c/. Tischendorf, ad loc. — 
 10 : 27, A adds j^wklo^^}] ; many others, £ts SetTrvov ; A ^cjjo? , P >o-iJ3 Z.h^^ ; 
 A omits 1'"'""'^ J3?. — 12:31, A l^lukic jI^soiQii; I,_k1 , P |?£ufcic? U-Jo] . — 
 15: 14, A .ZolOf^o ^ajZnTSn tgi •^n\ U4'.£ > P ^o ) n *j m .Zoloj^ ^rr\ }-a-»i-ffi 
 -a=Zilljal-»5i . — 1 5 : 40 (twice), A J2i?|.£? osi ,__ki-».]o ) iSfiA*^? ^r-^ ®^ ^r"^? • 
 P )-ai.9l ]-^ h^o jl.^fc. 1-j^ £w*o .— I 5 : 36-38, A Jj] M '^^1? j^l iLuc 
 !,_» \ZYfSi PI :gi nmS*^. , *\*? osi ^j jotn )] £J] ^^l^ >Cr^ ooio -.X*^ U A^ 
 
PRELIM IN A RY IN VES TIG A TIONS 5 3 
 
 ♦ J^o p-"] ^r^ "f^'V^ <"^ ■'■^'^^ _*5 jauX : 3uii >_soi_»^^ , P omits 
 Vlj"! , reads }] J for |]] , for ui nm\''>- — looiiJ , ]ogiVi\ ,-»£^? li-^ ooi looi )1 
 £J] '^^1 , omits \f^ , X^'f-^ for i^i-^? , oO-t^? for gi 4=^1? , >^g\^ for > on\Sn , 
 omits ^^■pi', transposes vss. 38a and 38<J. — 15:51 (three times), A .^^i^? 
 >-a:ik-£J ^"^^ U U] ^r^, P ■ ■^\..:u ^? ,_l*s ^ fJ ,Ji^ i^. Aphraates 
 agrees with Cod. 5^ , Travres KOLfjurjO-qdOfxida, ov Travrcs Se dAAayr/(ro/u,€^a, while 
 Peshitta is in agreement with the other Greek MSS., which read Travres ov 
 KOifxrjOrja-ofjLeOa, Travres Sc dAXayT/ao/xt^a. — 15 : 54, A £u*)j-*.aJ It-s-s j Vi^^C^ 
 £L-kU-.ci >c)_Do, P U- oS Ij^ >c}-o ).1>°i1 ]^ '«>>»i}io.— 15 : 55, A i-a^]? 
 I^aic ^^3^1 ^31 ■ P '^a-k^ sAsZas") ^01 Uia|o . A's reading is the regular 
 1T0V <Tov Odvare to vikos, but P's reading is also found, ttov rj vlkt} (tov ddvare. 
 
 2 Cor. 5 : 3, A V^i:^. --^iwiJ |3 ^^4nN? iio ,^? ^oLjk.]') , P 1^ ^] }]] 
 \4i^ —2^ wMf^b^J _4.£i2i»? . — 5:21, A second person plural, P first person 
 plural; A joOi.}^ ]Zaja-»?-| , P ]<n^]? \Zan^')} .— g : 6 , A ,^ \:l'>} jJoi? , P ]?oi 
 _io — *» ; A ?Ojj»J , P ?^ ; A ^» , P — ; A ]£w£?clc ,_i^ , P ji^ia-ac >^] . 
 This last difference is attested by other texts also. 
 
 Gal. 3:11, A wc??},:^ }] w*J] jjffaioJ x^-^ic? , P ^-*Ji -o??>^ .^--? ^7 
 )9uJ^ Zol^ )j0ala_l— £ . — 5:12, A .oJoi _aq.^Z^^ aAa.^^£Ci£ — ^9 wso^.^-]) 
 
 .0.0^ ^ - "'^** -'^ >] , P omiLsJ ■ ^^^°.^A ^ OmitS ^^''^^^^l • 
 
 The Greek diroKOij/ovTaL is understood by Aphraates in the same way as it 
 was understood by Chrysostom and Theophylact, "utinam genitalibus 
 exscindantur illi qui vos conturbant." (Cf. Bert, p. 177.) — 6: i, A 'V^aoiiZN.J , 
 P ^f£L^ . 
 
 Eph. 2 :6 (twice), A ,-aJoi? , P (nioii. ^Vn n]o . 
 
 I Thess. 4: 17, A —DOfS^ <nJ^^o(] % S \ ■ « i»y.3 j — o— »?1 , iVi« p , s; , 
 
 P I •> •' '^ ^ If-M^] .osilol^ ..24^^^ . 1 «* ««? , Tj t.A->^^ . «\*] ■ T M . t, tjio 
 
 1 Tim. I : 13, A l^iX «\S >cu.9o , P ZOJ— Z] ]i] . 
 
 2 Tim. 3: 16, A £u*oai jsi^) 001 ^Of£9, P ^^LzZ] J-moj.^) . 
 
 Hebr. 4:g (three times), A 01^9 a\L£XA, ^si )Vi* n '^ «"i|^? . P v^«|Vi 
 ](n^7 -"'^^'^ o2L2.4l^ 071 >:ua: . — ^12: I, A )JJ^ ]^s\ ^71 )Vnw ^»\S ^-s]? 
 |iu*»oZ? , P ^ T^r*!— U^ ^1? I'J'^-'S ^o?i±^ ,_-J^(Ji ^ L^] ,_3U* w£] . 
 — 12: 13, A w*:;>4U \i H^T^? U^?^? M^ i^l wSut^uioJ y r*^^? "^7 - 
 
 The comparison of the text of the Acts and the epistles which 
 Aphraates used with the text of the Peshitta shows that on the whole 
 these texts are closely related to each other. There are numerous 
 instances where A = P. 
 
54 NEIV TESTAMENT CANON IN SYRIAN CHURCH 
 
 But one cannot deny that Aphraates differs in a good many 
 passages from the Peshitta in such a way that the differences cannot 
 be explained on the ground of inaccurate quotation, even if we allow 
 all legitimate freedom for quotations from memory. For, strangely 
 enough, quite frequently the variation in Aphraates can be found also 
 in Greek texts. How could he, for instance, have gotten from the 
 Peshitta that strange reading of i Cor. 15 :5i which he quotes three 
 times ? He agrees with the best Greek MS., U^ , while P has the ordinary 
 reading. If the canon holds good here that the more difficult reading 
 is the older and more original, then A has here an older text than P. 
 Again in i Cor. 15 : 55 A's reading is the regular reading of the Greek 
 MSS., while P's is by no means so common. In i Cor. 9 : 5 both texts 
 represent two different traditions of the Greek text. Besides these varia- 
 tions there are different translations of the same Greek text, some occur- 
 ring so often as to leave no room for the thought that this is an inaccurate 
 quotation of A from P; e. g., Hebr. 4 : 9 (thrice); Eph. 2 : 6 (twice); i 
 Cor. 15 :4o (twice); 2 Cor. 5 : 18 (twice); and in one case at least the 
 translation of a Greek word which Aphraates gives is also given by 
 Crysostom and Theophylact, viz., Gal. 5:12 airoKoi^ovTai ■= "utinam 
 genitalibus exscindantur," P = " utinam praescindendo praescin 
 dantur." 
 
 All this points to a different text of the Acts and the epistles from 
 that of P. The difficulty is that we have no other text. But there is 
 no reason to believe that Aphraates knew Greek, and that he used a 
 Greek MS. alongside of his Peshitta text. There must have been at 
 least one different text from P for Acts and epistles ; the case of the 
 gospels would thus be paralleled. To my mind there is no doubt in 
 regard to this. 
 
 Can we express any opinion as to the relation of this text to that of 
 P ? It used a different Greek text as its basis — that is plain from the 
 preceding. Perhaps such passages as Acts 19:3, where A has, "Are 
 ye baptized ? " P = " With what are ye baptized ? " 2 Tim. 3 : 16, A = 
 " Everything which is in the Spirit of God," P = " Every writing which is 
 written by the Spirit of God ;" Rom. 1:3, 4, A josi, P ,^i^z] ; i Cor. 
 I :3o; I Cor. 10: 27, where A adds (with others) cis hdirvov, so as to 
 make the Greek term KoKd more intelligible to the Syrians ; i Cor. 
 15 : 40 ; 15 : 36-38 ; 2 Cor. 9 : 6 — permit us to say (though only tenta- 
 tively) that the Aphraates text had a more primitive and natural style, 
 not so concerned to express the fine shades of difference in theology as 
 P, e. g., 2 Tim. 3:16; Rom. 5 : 14. 
 
PRELIM IN A R V INVES TIG A TIONS 5 5 
 
 J. Ephraim. 
 
 While Aphraates used only the Acts of the Apostles and the epistles 
 of Paul, including among them the epistle to the Hebrews, Ephraim 
 uses also the catholic epistles and the Revelation, so that he quotes from 
 every New Testament book that is in our Bible. Now, the Peshitta did 
 not contain all of them ; it omitted 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, and Revela- 
 tion. Where Ephraim quoted these passages from is a question. It 
 may be that he quoted them from a Greek MS., but it is much more 
 probable that already in his time there were translations of these books 
 current, though they were not taken into the canon of the New Testa- 
 ment. 
 
 But, leaving these quotations alone, one naturally asks : Are 
 Ephraim 's quotations from the other books which are in the Peshitta 
 like the text of P, or different from it ? 
 
 Again I refer here to the collation made by Rev. F. H. Woods in 
 Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, Vol. Ill, pp. 132 ff. 
 
 What strikes one first of all is the fact that in the main Ephraim 
 quotes from the Peshitta. There are, however, also in Ephraim 
 instances where he has a different translation of the same Greek text, 
 e. g., Eph. 4:3)2 Cor. 7:2; Eph. 3:19. But they are not so fre- 
 quent as in Aphraates. 
 
 There are also a few references in which Ephraim's variation is 
 supported by Greek MSS., and he has therefore had a text which 
 used a different Greek text from P. 
 
 Acts 5:41, E ji^-fc-ais >o, 0, P .oavkiO|_D ; E atLoA, , P \LaA. . "The 
 
 first variant agrees with the Greek airo Trpoo-wTrou tov a-vveSpiov, the second 
 is supported by Origen, the i^thiopic, and a few very late Greek cursives." 
 (Woods.) 
 
 2 Cor. 5:21, E ,_aX*, P .a^^X^ic ; A . iJi^^Csc , but also = P, Greek 
 inrep rfp.Civ. 
 
 Gal. 5 :22, E the singular /capTro's = Greek, P Kapiroi. 
 
 The variants are few and not as significant as those of Aphraates. 
 Nevertheless, the influence of another version than the Peshitta cannot 
 be denied. But that influence is not half so strong as in Aphraates. 
 The Peshitta text, as in the gospels, so also for Acts and epistles, is 
 gradually gaining the upper hand, and it cannot have taken long before 
 it stood, if not alone, yet supreme in the field. 
 
56 NEW TESTAMENT CANON IN SYRIAN CHURCH 
 
 It will be well to compare at this point the extent of the different 
 
 canons : 
 
 The Extent of the Canon of the Doctrina Addai. 
 
 1. The Diatessaron. 
 
 2. The Acts of the Apostles 
 
 3. The epistles of Paul, probably without the epistle to the Hebrews. 
 There is no trace of i, 2, 3 John, i and 2 Peter, James, Jude, and Revelation. 
 
 The Extent of Aphraates" Canon. 
 
 1. The four gospels in the Diatessaron and the separate gospels. 
 
 2. The Acts of the Apostles. 
 
 3. The epistles of Paul, including the epistle to the Hebrews. 
 
 There is no trace of i, 2, 3 John, i and 2 Peter, James, Jude, and Revela- 
 tion. 
 
 The Extent of the Canon of the Peshitta. 
 
 1. The four gospels. 
 
 2. The Acts of the Apostles. 
 
 3. The epistles of Paul, including the epistle to the Hebrews. 
 
 4. The catholic epistles, i Peter, i John, James. 
 
 The Peshitta omits 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. 
 
 The Extent of Ephraim's Canon. 
 1-4 is like the Peshitta, but he cites also from 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, 
 and Revelation. 
 
 III. CANONICITV. 
 
 Now it will be asked : Did Aphraates regard these New Testament 
 books really as canonical, or does he simply refer to them ? Had he 
 really Sl fixed New Testa?nent canon ? 
 
 There can be no doubt about this. In fact, we do not expect any- 
 thing else, if we remember that he lived in the fourth century. But that 
 might, perhaps, not be decisive in the Syrian church, which at Aphraates' 
 time had scarcely existed two centuries. Aphraates, however, uses the 
 entire Bible, the Old and the New Testament, as the court of final appeal. 
 There is no difference for him in authority ; he has no grades of inspira- 
 tion or canonicity. The New Testament stands on the same level as 
 the Old Testament. He uses the same formulas of introduction in 
 citations from the Old Testament and the New Testament. Mostly, of 
 course, he uses for the Old Testament the form : " The prophet says, " 
 "David says," "He speaks in the prophet," "The living mouth speaks 
 in the prophet," "It is written," "The Scripture testifies," "He says in 
 
PRELIM IN A RY IN VES TIG A TIONS 5 7 
 
 the Scripture." He introduces eighty-six quotations from the Old 
 Testament, with, "It is written." For the gospels his introductory 
 phrases are mostly, "Our Lord says," but also ''The Scripture says'' 
 (Bert, p. 145), "The Lord writes (p. 60), "The King has written us 
 thus" (p. 215), "He has written us beforehand" (p. 346), "Jesus, who 
 is called your teacher, has written you" (p. 329), " // is written for you 
 in the Word" (p. 330). There are fifteen citations from the gospels 
 which he introduces with, " It is written.'' Statements like these leave 
 no doubt that the book is referred to ; that not only the words of Jesus 
 are canonical, but the gospels containing those words. 
 
 From the Acts of the Apostles he quotes only four times, intro- 
 ducing the citations with, "Our Redeemer says," also "The blessed 
 apostles proclaim," "The Acts of the twelve apostles tell us about 
 this," "The preaching of the twelve apostles testifies to us;" which 
 shows that the book itself is referred to. 
 
 The epistles of Paul are, almost all of them, introduced by, "The 
 apostle says." Never mentioning Paul's name in an introductory 
 phrase, he regards Paul as the apostle kolt €$oxr]v. Once only a letter 
 as such is referred to by name : "The blessed apostle writes in the 
 first epistle to the Corinthians and says" (p. 10). But he has also 
 four quotations introduced with the formula, "It is written" : i Tim. 
 I : 9 (p. 21); I Cor. 6 : 5, "Again in another letter it is written ;" 2 Cor. 
 6: 16 (p. 274); Gal. 6 : 6 (p. 368). Two quotations are not counted 
 here which may be just as well from the Old Testament as from 
 Rom. 4 : 3. 
 
 Aphraates had, then, a fixed New Testament canon, which stood on 
 the same level of authority as the Old Testament. And in this New 
 Testament canon he distinguishes no degrees of authority ; all the 
 books are on the same plane. 
 
 The question which now faces us is : What is the principle on which 
 Aphraates bases his canonicity ? It is not necessary to inquire what is 
 the principle of the Doctrina Addai and Ephraim, because Aphraates 
 is a true representative of the whole Syrian church, which they are not. 
 He is no acute theologian, who can draw hairsplitting distinctions ; 
 he is a thoroughly practical man, with a good deal of common-sense. 
 His principle of canonicity will, therefore, be the principle of the 
 whole church. Of course, we have to remember that he received his 
 canon from the church, and would therefore accept it because it was 
 generally accepted in the church. But his principle was therefore not 
 the traditional. There is no hint of such a principle in his writings. 
 
58 NEW TESTAMENT CANON IN SYRIAN CHURCH 
 
 Why does he regard the gospels as canonical ? Because they con- 
 tain the words of our Savior. This appears over and over again. 
 Nearly all of his quotations are, as already remarked, introduced by, 
 "The Lord" or "Our Savior says." He does not think at all of an 
 apostolic basis. The writers of the gospels are for him a matter of indif- 
 ference; not even once is a single name of the evangelists mentioned. 
 Parisot says he mentions John, but everyone who notices the quota- 
 tions will see that this is not John the evangelist, but John the Baptist. 
 
 Why does he regard the epistles of Paul as canonical ? Because 
 they contain the words of the inspired apostle. Here also, his cita- 
 tions are almost always prefaced with, "The blessed apostle says." 
 
 Why does he regard the book of Acts as canonical ? Because it is 
 the mouthpiece of the twelve apostles ; they speak in that book. 
 
 The principle of the canonization of the gospels is : Christ speaks 
 in them ; of the epistles : the inspired apostle Paul speaks in them ; 
 and of the Acts : the twelve apostles speak in them. 
 
 Now at last are we ready to turn to a reconstruction of the history 
 of the New Testament canon in the Syrian church. 
 
 RECONSTRUCTION OF THE HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 
 CANON IN THE SYRIAN CHURCH. 
 
 The earliest phases in the history of the New Testament canon in 
 Syria are still veiled in darkness. However, the discovery of the Sina- 
 iticus makes it plain that there was a great deal of activity displayed in 
 the early Syrian church in regard to the text of the New Testament, or, 
 better, of the gospels. It is probable that the two texts, Ss and Sc, are 
 only specimens or representatives of other texts. The relative inde- 
 pendence of these two texts leads one to think that there must have 
 been made many translations of the gospels, which were more or 
 less independent of each other. As more churches were built in the 
 different towns and villages, the desire, the necessity, was felt to have a 
 copy of the gospels, at first not for private use, but for the common 
 worship in the church. They could not use the Greek originals ; 
 they needed a Syriac translation. How many texts there were we shall 
 probably never know. I do not think that there is one type of the 
 Old Syriac text ; there must have been many. The task, therefore, will 
 be to determine which of them is the oldest text. But we must not 
 think that that oldest text was in general use in the entire church. 
 Other texts slightly younger were probably used by others as the church 
 
RECONSTRUCTION OF THE HISTORY 59 
 
 grew. They were, then, not copies from the Old Syriac, but different 
 translations. But all this must, in the nature of the case, be a matter of 
 conjecture. It is founded only on the relative independence of the 
 two texts represented by Ss and Sc, and also of P. Again, we can say 
 with no great amount of certainty, but with a good deal of plausibility, 
 that at first not all the four gospels had been translated, but probably 
 only one, then two, then three, then four. They were current in this 
 single form. This is indicated by the different order in which the 
 gospels stand in Ss and Sc. It is also very likely, as Professor J. Ren- 
 del Harris has shown, that an account of the passion was in existence 
 in harmonistic form. This would be very natural, considering how 
 great an emphasis the early Christians laid on the death of Jesus Christ, 
 almost to the exclusion of the life which he lived in Palestine. 
 
 But we are on the ground of mere conjecture, however plausible 
 and natural it be, until we come to the Sinaiticus. That is, as we have 
 seen, the oldest form of the gospels of the Syrian church which we have 
 in our possession. The Greek text which underlies it belongs evidently 
 to the first half of the second century ; of it the remark of Credner 
 about Codex Bezse, to which, as we have seen, this text is closely 
 related, holds good : 
 
 Veranderungen wie diese konnten in der katholischen Kirche nur bis 
 um die Mitte des zweiten Jahrhunderts mit dem Text der Evangelien vorge- 
 nommen warden, denn nach dieser Zeit hat die Behauptung eines gottlichen 
 Ursprungs der neutestamentlichen Schriften in derselben allgemeine Aner- 
 kennung gefunden. Dieses Dogma lassl keine solche Behandlungsweise des 
 Textes mehr zu, wie dieselbe mit dem Texte unserer Handschrift vorgenom- 
 men ist. Dann wiirde unserer Handschrift ein Text aus dem zweiten Jahr- 
 hundert zu Grunde Hegen. 
 
 The same holds also good of Sc ; but we shall speak of that later. 
 
 The translator of Ss was faithful to his original ; but his aim was to 
 give a good, forcible, and popular translation ; he did not want to 
 sacrifice the good Syriac to a very literal translation of the Greek. 
 There are, then, in his translation certain minor points where he trans- 
 lates freely, just as we should expect from him. For him the substance 
 was the main thing, and deep reverence for the letter is not one of his 
 characteristics, which does by no means reflect on the faithfulness of 
 his translation, but is nevertheless a sign that the books as such were 
 not yet regarded as canonical. 
 
 Now, a few years later, about 172-5 A. D., Tatian made his 
 Diatessaron, and it took at once possession of the field. It can easily 
 
6o NEW TESTAMENT CANON IN SYRIAN CHURCH 
 
 be understood that it should be used more than the separate gospels. 
 It was much more convenient for the common people, and also for the 
 reading in the church services, than the separate gospels. Moreover, 
 it will be remembered that Christianity was at first only the religion 
 of a minority; but with Abgar III., 176-213 A. D., it became the 
 national religion. This great change coincided, then, with the origin 
 of the Diatessaron. And it is due to this fact, in addition to its con- 
 venience, that it became the gospel book of the Syrian church, and that 
 the separate gospels had to give way. This was, however, possible only 
 on two conditions : (i) that the four separate gospels were not yet estab- 
 lished by long use, which is quite in harmony with the result of our 
 investigation; it was made about 160-70 A. D., perhaps between 150- 
 70 A. D. ; (2) that there was not yet a conception of the canonicity 
 of the books as such. If that idea had already been present, such a 
 substitution would have been impossible. 
 
 There can, however, be no doubt that even after the introduction 
 of the Diatessaron the four separate gospels were used alongside of 
 the harmony, especially by the educated classes, though probably not 
 in the church services. That the separate gospels had adherents is seen 
 to the fact that after the introduction of the harmony the Curetonian 
 gospels were translated. They are later than the Diatessaron, but they 
 cannot be much younger ; that the underlying Greek text shows. The 
 origin of this text was due to the desire to have the separate gospels in 
 a text which corresponded more closely with the Diatessaron. It can 
 hardly be much later than 200 A. D. And then, about one hundred 
 years later, there is another text current in the Syrian church, as we see 
 from Aphraates. The separate gospels had enough adherents during all 
 this time. 
 
 But still the main text was the Diatessaron. And now it may be 
 laid down as a fact that at the end of the second century the Syrian 
 church used as a church only the Diatessaron of Tatian, and this was, 
 I have no doubt, already regarded as canonical about the year 200 
 A. D. And that for the following considerations : 
 
 It is natural to assume that the development of the idea of the 
 canon in the Syrian church should follow on the whole the line which 
 is followed in the Grseco-Roman church. Now, there the first thing 
 that was regarded as authoritative or canonical was the words of Jesus 
 Christ, no matter whether they were handed down in oral or in written 
 form. When the gospels had been written, they were not regarded as 
 authoritative, but simply the words of Christ which they contained ; 
 not the books, but the words of Christ, were canonical. 
 
RECONSTRUCTION OF THE HISTORY 6 1 
 
 As time passed on, and there was no longer an oral tradition on 
 which the church could rely, it was quite natural that the written gos- 
 pels should increase in dignity. Now not only the words, but also the 
 deeds of Jesus Christ are regarded with interest, from which it was 
 only one step to regard the whole contents, or the gospels themselves, 
 as authoritative. Of course, the ground of the authority of the books 
 lay ultimately in the fact that they contained the words of Christ. But 
 there were quite a number of gospels; hoW to distinguish those which 
 were more authoritative from the others was the great question. All 
 reported the words of Christ, however they might differ in other 
 respects. It took quite a long time till our four gospels were regarded 
 as exclusively canonical. And what was the test applied ? Why were 
 they regarded as canonical and others not ? Because they were written 
 by apostles and apostolic men. Apostolicity became the principle of 
 canonicity. 
 
 It is significant for the history of the canon of the New Testament 
 in the Syrian church that they started at once with our four gospels ; 
 they had not to pass through that long process through which the 
 Graeco-Roman church had to go, and which ended by limiting the 
 number of the gospels which should be used in the churches to our four 
 gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Thus the unknown trans- 
 lator of the Sinaiticus translated these four ; Tatian compiled these 
 four, and no others ; Sc and P are translations of these only. No mat- 
 ter how often the gospels may have been translated into Syriac, no 
 matter how many copies there may have been of single gospels in the 
 Syrian church, there is absolutely no evidence that the Syrians have 
 ever had in these early times apocryphal gospels. They did not need to 
 separate other gospels from these four canonical gospels. That had 
 been done already for them by the Graeco-Roman church. They 
 inherit at once the result of a long struggle. 
 
 This explains why the Syrian church has the much more primitive 
 and natural principle of canonicity, and is at variance with the entire 
 Grseco-Roman church in this point. It regards these writings as 
 authoritative because they contain the words and deeds of Jesus. 
 It does not attach any importance whatever to the persons of the 
 writers of the gospels. Aphraates, as late as 340 A. D., does not even 
 once mention the name of one of them. The words and life of Jesus are 
 their basis of authority ; no matter who has written the reports of 
 them. That they are a reliable source their universal acceptance by 
 the Graeco-Roman church had shown. 
 
62 NEW TESTAMENT CANON IN SYRIAN CHURCH 
 
 Bearing this in mind, we do not expect a long development. The 
 gospel canon must soon become fixed. At about 200 A. D. they 
 would say, "As it stands wr-tten in the gospel," meaning by "gospel" • 
 the book. 
 
 We see, then, that at the end of the second or at the beginning of 
 the third century the Syrian church had a very peculiar canon, such as 
 no other church, so far as we know, had, viz., a gospel harmony, the 
 Diatessaron of Tatian. To the truth of this statement the Doctrina 
 Addai witnesses when it says that after Addai had for some time suc- 
 cessfully labored in Edessa, "a large multitude of people assembled 
 day by day and came to the prayer of the service, and to the reading 
 of the Old and New Testament, of the Diatessaron " (p. 34). This 
 shows that the Diatessaron was their first gospel canon. 
 
 The next step in the development is indicated by the Doctrina 
 Addai, when it says (p. 44) : " But the law and the prophets and the 
 gospel, which ye read every day before the people, and the epistles of 
 Paul, which Simon Peter sent us from the city of Rome, and the Acts 
 of the twelve apostles, which John, the son of Zebedee, sent us from 
 Ephesus, these books read ye in the churches of Christ, and with these 
 read not any others, as there is not any other in which the truth that 
 ye hold is written, except these books which retain you in the faith to 
 which ye have been called." 
 
 There is evidently a distinction made between the law and the 
 prophets and the gospel on the one side, and the epistles of Paul and 
 the Acts on the other side. The gospel and the Old Testament are read 
 daily. But the epistles and Acts have come later, which is indicated 
 here by the sentences, "which Simon Peter sent us from the city of 
 Rome," "which John, the son of Zebedee, sent us from Ephesus." 
 They are directed to read these books also in addition to the gospel 
 and the Old Testament, which they are accustomed to read every day 
 in the service. The Diatessaron is plainly put on the same plane with 
 the law and the prophets. The epistles of Paul and the Acts, though 
 also authoritative, are not yet on the same level. 
 
 This is the first notice which we have about the epistles of Paul and 
 the Acts of the Apostles in the Syrian church. 
 
 When they were first translated we do not know. Zahn suggests, 
 on the basis of a remark of Eusebius, that Tatian had translated them 
 and given them to the church.^^ But if nothing else could be said 
 
 38 Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., IV, 29: "But they say that he [Tatian] ventured to 
 paraphrase certain words of the apostle [Paul] in order to improve their style." 
 
RECONSTRUCTION OF THE HISTORY 63 
 
 against this suggestion, one passage would seem to be conclusive, viz., 
 the rendering of Rom. i : 3, which we find in Aphraates, "The apostle 
 [by which always Paul is meant] witnesses: 'Jesus Christ was from 
 Mary, from the seed of the house of David, through the spirit of holi- 
 ness.'" This passage, which makes that doctrine, which was so 
 obnoxious to Tatian, so clear, and develops it more strongly than the 
 Greek, seems hardly to have been written by Tatian. Tatian, who did 
 not shrink from omitting the genealogies and every passage which 
 pointed to Jesus' Davidic descent, would certainly in his fji€Ta<f>pa-o-aL of 
 the epistles omit this reference, or, at least, would not make the doc- 
 trine much clearer than it is in the original Greek. I recognize, of 
 course, that Zahn suggests that this passage is taken from the apocry- 
 phal letter of Paul to the Corinthians, on which Ephraim commented. 
 But that cannot be proved. That Ephraim commented upon this 
 third letter of Paul to the Corinthians is no reason to think that it was 
 in his canon. There is no evidence that it ever formed a part of the 
 canon of the Syrian church. Besides this, Zahn himself puts this sug- 
 gestion under the head of " Problematisches." But the reference is 
 plainly to Rom. i : 3. 
 
 However, even if Tatian did not translate the letters of Paul, it 
 must certainly have been done not very long after the translation of 
 the gospels. It may have been fifty years, perhaps more. Just when 
 it took place we cannot tell. The Doctrina Addai, however, which 
 describes, as is comiiionly believed, the condition of the church as it 
 existed in the period from about 200-250 A. D., would favor our pre- 
 supposition that it was done about 230-50 A. D. Now, the question 
 is : Can we rely absolutely on the statements of that document ? As 
 regards the statement that the Old Testament and the gospel and the 
 Acts and the epistles of Paul were read in the churches, there can be 
 little doubt that this is correct. But can we rely on the statement that 
 the epistles of Paul were sent by Peter from Rome? Of course, Peter 
 had nothing to do with it. He is introduced in accordance with the 
 design of the writer to push the beginning of Christianity in Edessa 
 back to the time of Jesus and his apostles. But can we infer from 
 that statement that the epistles of Paul were imported from Rome ? 
 I do not think that the question can be absolutely answered in the 
 present state of our knowledge about the Syrian church. All that 
 can be said is that it is highly probable, if we take into account 
 the fact that the Syriac text is very closely related to the so-called 
 "Western" text, agreeing with it in many points where all the other 
 
64 NEW TESTAMENT CANON IN SYRIAN CHURCH 
 
 texts differ. Moreover, the frequent intercourse between the two cities 
 explains much. 
 
 Now, if that be so, that the epistles of Paul were brought into the 
 Syrian church from Rome, then we must conclude that the epistle to 
 the Hebrews, which all Syrians regard as Pauline, was not in that col- 
 lection. For at that time it was not regarded as Pauline in Rome. 
 This is confirmed by the fact that the text of the Peshitta shows, as is 
 generally accepted, marks which indicate that it was made by a different 
 translator. Then the epistle to the Hebrews must have come in later. 
 When that took place we again do not know. But about eighty or a 
 hundred years later we find Aphraates using it as Pauline. He quotes it 
 in the same way as the other letters of Paul, and there is no trace that 
 he knew that it was doubted elsewhere. The certainty with which he 
 uses it as Pauline indicates that it must have been added to the Pauline 
 collection not so very much later. Perhaps it came very soon after- 
 ward, perhaps twenty or more years later than the other letters. All 
 this is based on the assumption that the epistles of Paul were brought 
 from Rome to Edessa. 
 
 As soon as it can, however, be shown that the Syrian church 
 received its Pauline collection, not from Rome, but from Alexandria, 
 the argument falls to the ground, and we need not assume that the 
 epistle to the Hebrews was ever wanting in the Syrian collection of 
 Pauline letters. But that is not proved yet, though it must be said 
 that Aphraates' use of it would favor this theory ; the tradition in the 
 Doctrina Addai, the close relation between the Syrian and the Western 
 text, and the difference of the translators point the other way. 
 
 Did, then, the Syrian church in that time, 200-250 A. D., receive 
 all the letters of Paul except Hebrews, and was none missing ? 
 
 The homilies of Aphraates would seem to indicate that not all the 
 epistles were in his canon. He omits to cite Philemon and 2 Thessa- 
 lonians. Now, Philemon is so small and of such a character that we 
 are not surprised that he does not quote it. But why does he not 
 quote 2 Thessalonians ? We have to remember that he does not quote 
 so very many passages from the epistles altogether, and his method 
 of quotation does not warrant us in making the assertion that it was 
 not in his canon, in the face of the fact that it was universally 
 accepted in the Grseco-Roman church. We must, therefore, conclude 
 that his failure to quote 2 Thessalonians was due to accident, and 
 that the Syrian church received, indeed, all the Pauline letters at that 
 time. 
 
 J 
 
RECONSTRUCTION OF THE HISTORY 65 
 
 When these epistles of Paul had been introduced they would 
 undergo recensions, or there originated different translations of the 
 epistles. Both these are seen in Aphraates and Ephraim. Certain 
 passages show that the text, especially of Aphraates, was a more popu- 
 lar and free translation, so that this would be an earlier stage of the 
 Peshitta text. Other passages show that there was a different transla- 
 tion from that of the Peshitta, because they are translations of different 
 Greek readings. But since the bulk of the texts is the same, and the 
 passages of this latter kind become much rarer in Ephraim, there is 
 good reason to believe that both the Aphraates text and the Ephraim 
 text mark simply two stages in the development of the Peshitta 
 text. 
 
 The Doctrina Addai speaks also about the Acts of the twelve 
 apostles, which they are directed to read in the churches. Whence it 
 came is not known; for nobody regards Addai's statement, that John 
 sent it from Ephesus, as historic. When it came can only be guessed at. 
 It seems to have come about the same time as Paul's epistles. How it 
 came nobody can tell. But I point to the fact that it came quite as 
 suddenh'^ and quite as mysteriously into the canon of the Graeco- 
 Roman church. 
 
 To sum up, then, the development of the canon until 250 A. D. : 
 There were originally the four separate gospels in use about 160-75 
 A. D. These were supplanted by the more convenient translation of 
 the Diatessaron when Christianity became the national religion. About 
 200 A. D. the gospel canon is fixed ; it is the Diatessaron. 
 
 In the time 200-250 A. D. the epistles of Paul, except Hebrews, 
 and the Acts of the Apostles came in. Soon afterward the epistle to 
 the Hebrews was introduced and added to the Pauline collection. At 
 338 A. D. we have the canon of the church comprising the Diatessa- 
 ron of Tatian, the epistles of Paul, including Hebrews, and the Acts of 
 the Apostles. Now, the whole method of Aphraates' quotation points 
 to the fact that this canon was already for some time in existence. 
 We should say, therefore, with a good deal of plausibility, that the 
 Syrian church had a fixed New Testament canon already about 300 
 A. D., if not earlier. Of the catholic epistles and the Revelation there 
 is no trace. 
 
 Meanwhile there was another movement active in the church, dating 
 back as far as the beginning of Christianity in Edessa, insignificant and 
 small at first, but its victory was inevitable. It was stated above that 
 when the Diatessaron took the place of the separate gospels there were 
 
66 NEW TESTAMENT CANON IN SYRIAN CHURCH 
 
 still a good number of adherents of the old version. They translated 
 the Greek gospels again and again. On the church at large this had 
 no influence at first ; it used the Diatessaron. But the fact must be 
 recognized that these men had on their side the unanimous consent of 
 the Grseco-Roman church ; for nowhere else was a harmony used. 
 
 I do not mean to say that they knew this, and that they endeavored 
 to substitute the four separate gospels for the Diatessaron. But it 
 had naturally to lead to such a step. 
 
 The movement was well under way at the time of Aphraates. He 
 quotes from the Diatessaron, but also very often, perhaps mostly, from 
 the separate gospels. We can no more say, in his case, that the Dia- 
 tessaron was his only gospel canon, because of his frequent quotations 
 from the other gospels. The separate gospels were equally canonical 
 for him, and, since he is a true representative of the church at large, 
 also for the church. It could be only a question of time which form 
 should ultimately prevail ; for that they would retain two different 
 forms in their canon would be impossible as time went on. 
 
 Ephraim still uses the Diatessaron, writing a commentary on it, but 
 his quotations are mostly from the Peshitta. He seems to have used 
 the Diatessaron more for his private use and for the arrangement of 
 his lectures on the exposition of the gospels, though very probably it 
 was also still used in the churches alongside of the four separate 
 gospels. It was very natural that some would substitute the separate 
 gospels in the form of the Peshitta about Ephraim's time ; others 
 would still use the Diatessaron. As always, so also here, there were two 
 parties, the conservatives and the progressive liberals. Public opinion, 
 however, strengthened by the unanimous action of the Grgeco- Roman 
 church, must have been in favor of the Peshitta. This is expressed in 
 the order of Rabbula, bishop of Edessa, 412-35 A. D., who says : 
 
 Let all the presbyters and deacons have a care that in all the churches 
 there be provided and read a copy of the distinct gospels. 
 
 And soon the final step is seen in the destruction of the remaining 
 copies of the Diatessaron by Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrus, 423-57 
 A. D., who tells about it as follows : 
 
 Tatian also CQmposed the gospel which is called Diatessaron, cutting out 
 the genealogies and whatever other passages show that the Lord was born of 
 the seed of David according to the flesh. And not only did the members of 
 his sect make use of this work, but even those that follow the apostolic doc 
 trine, not perceiving the mischief of the composition, but using the book too 
 
RECONSTRUCTION OF THE HISTORY 67 
 
 simply as an abndgment. And I myself found more than two hundred such 
 books held in respect in the churches of our parts ; and I collected and put 
 them all away and put the gospels of the four evangelists in their place. 
 
 With this we have reached the end of the development of the gospel 
 canon in the Syrian church. The Peshitta held from now on the field; 
 it has never been supplanted. 
 
 While this struggle of the gospels was going on, there was simul- 
 taneously with it the development of the Acts of the Apostles and the 
 epistles. When the epistles of Paul and the Acts of the Apostles had 
 come into the Syrian church, they would soon be bound together with 
 the gospels. Now, since there were two parties, the one would have in 
 its volume the Diatessaron and the Acts and epistles of Paul, the other, 
 the separate gospels and the Acts and epistles of Paul. 
 
 It is very probable that their texts were different, the one set based 
 on this MS. authority, the other on that. That would account for the 
 differences in the quotations of Aphraates and Ephraim. Now, we 
 have seen that Aphraates' canon did not contain more than the gospels, 
 the Acts of the Apost les, and Paul's epistles, and we concluded that this 
 was the church's canon, so that then the Peshitta was not yet complete. 
 It must, however, be admitted that the fact that Aphraates did not 
 quote from any of the other books contained in the Peshitta might 
 be explained by saying that he relied for his citations on the official 
 canon of the church, and did not want to cite as authoritative letters 
 which were not familiar to all and not contained in the people's Bible ; 
 so that this fact does not argue for the non-existence of these epistles in 
 Syriac form at his time. It is very well possible that they existed 
 already in Syriac translations, but were not yet canonized. But did we 
 not say that Aphraates' principle of canonicity for the epistles was 
 apostolicity : the inspired apostle speaks in them, therefore are they 
 authoritative ? Why did he, then, not accept these epistles of James, 
 Peter (the first epistle), and John (the first epistle)? Now, while this is 
 perfectly true, we must not deny the influence of the general opinion on 
 any man. He would certainly have no objection on the ground of his 
 principle to accept these books into his Bible. But it would, perhaps, 
 take some time for him, as well as for the whole church, to do so. They 
 were so accustomed to regard Paul as the apostle par excellence, so 
 used to regard his word, besides Christ's, as alone authoritative, that 
 such a change in this opinion could not be effected in a short 
 time. We have seen that the principle of canonicity of the Syrian 
 church voices itself in Aphraates. Paul's epistles were accepted because 
 
68 NEIV TESTAMENT CANON IN SYRIAN CHURCH 
 
 they were apostolic. Now, should it sooner or later be said that also 
 other books were written by other apostles, who were just as eminent 
 as Paul, the church would be inclined to accept them. There would 
 be no reason, based on her principle, why she should not, and the fact 
 is that she did, though not at once. The express prohibition in the 
 Doctrina Addai, which was written about Aphraates' time, throws 
 some light on this problem. " With these [the Old Testament, the 
 gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the epistles of Paul] read not 
 any others, as there is not any other in which the truth that ye hold is 
 written, except these books, which retain you in the faith to which ye 
 have been called." This remark points evidently to a time when the 
 attempt was made to introduce other books into the canon of the 
 church. What these books were we do not know. But it seems a safe 
 conclusion that they were these three catholic epistles, i Peter, i John, 
 and James. These had been translated and should be put into the 
 canon. But as is always the case, there were men who were opposed 
 to this, and to one of these opponents we owe that prohibition in the 
 Doctrina Addai. 
 
 The time referred to may be adequately fixed. The Diatessaron 
 was at that time the authoritative version for church use. This was 
 before the time of Aphraates ; the epistles of Paul and the Acts were 
 regarded as authoritative, which was also the case in Aphraates' time 
 and earlier. Later than Aphraates it can hardly have been, because 
 Ephraim already calls the Peshitta " our version," and quotes from 
 these epistles. It cannot be much earlier than Aphraates, for in his 
 writings there is no trace of the catholic epistles, and no word is said 
 about any attempt to introduce them into the canon. It may be that 
 in his time, or, at the latest, very few years later (345-50 A. D.), the 
 epistles were introduced into the canon. 
 
 So much is certain : Ephraim knew them and quoted from them. 
 But besides, Ephraim quotes also from 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, and 
 Revelation ; he knew, therefore, all the books of our New Testament. 
 In this he went farther than the Syrian church as a whole did. The 
 Peshitta, which marks the final step of the church's canon, receives only 
 James, i Peter, i John ; the epistles of those three apostles could be 
 classed with those of the great Paul ; it admitted no others. It is 
 important to recognize that Ephraim is here out of line with the church 
 at large. This finds its explanation in the fact that he traveled much 
 and came in contact with the canon of the Constantinople church. 
 Besides, it is an open question whether he quoted these books from the 
 
RECONSTRUCTION OF THE HISTORY 69 
 
 (ireek or from already existing Syriac translations. At any rate, the 
 church did not follow him. 
 
 Perhaps a word should be said about his commentary on the 
 apocryphal correspondence of Paul and the Corinthians. In the first 
 place it should be noticed that it is not yet proved that this commen- 
 tary has been written by Ephraim. It may bean altogether later work. 
 In the second place, even if Ephraim wrote this commentary, that 
 does not prove that this apocryphal letter of Paul was in the canon of 
 the Syrian church. There is no trace of it. And, then, Ephraim went, 
 as we saw, farther than the church at large did. 1 am quite certain 
 that it was not in the canon of the church. 
 
 But the Peshitta with James, 1 John, and i Peter was rapidly grow- 
 ing in the favor of the people. Ephraim differs very seldom from it ; it is 
 called by him " our version." After him it must have been used almost 
 exclusively, and when the Diatessaron was removed, the Peshitta was 
 supreme. From the first half of the fifth century it reigns alone. 
 Subsequent attempts to supplant it have failed. It is ///^version of the 
 Syrian church. With this the history of the New Testament canon is 
 completed in the Syrian church. Its development has taken a long 
 time and is absolutely unique in the history of the New Testament. 
 
 O^ THE 
 
 UNIVERSfTY 
 
 OF 
 
VITA. 
 
 I was born August 28, 1877, in Ratingen, near Diisseldorf on the 
 Rhine, Germany. From 1883-87 I went to the public school ; from 
 1887-88, to the high school at Burscheid. In 1888 I entered the Quarta 
 of the Royal Gymnasium at Diisseldorf, and remained there until 1891, 
 in which year I left for Marburg on the Lahn, and stayed in the Mar- 
 burger Gymnasium until the autumn of 1893. Then I returned to 
 Diisseldorf, and was graduated in the spring of 1895. About a week 
 after my graduation I sailed for America, and in the fall of the same 
 year entered Union Theological Seminary in New York, and at the 
 same time Columbia University, to study theology and Semitic 
 languages. In 1898 I was graduated from Union Theological Semi- 
 nary and received the degree of B.D. sum?na mm laude. Froni 1898-99 
 I was tutor in Union Theological Seminary. During my theological 
 course I studied also Semitic languages with Professor Gottheil, of 
 Columbia University, and with Professors Francis Brown and Briggs 
 in the Union Theological Seminary. In the spring of 1899 the 
 Faculty of the Union Theological Seminary appointed me a Fellow 
 of the Seminary. 
 
UNIVEESITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBEABY, 
 BERKELEY 
 
 THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 Books not returned on time are subject to a fine of 
 
 f^¥^ 
 
 fpcr 
 
 f^^ 
 ^ 'j.. 
 
 ^<a>. 
 
 
 -jT'v:. 
 
 1953 LU 
 
 JUL 24 1982 
 
 ^^ JUN 2 8 1982 
 
 lOm-4,'23 
 
'R