gurtner syriac mark.draft.2

1

THE GOSPEL OF MARK IN SYRIAC CHRISTIANITY Daniel M. Gurtner

[email protected]

This paper explores the origins and development of the Gospel of Mark in

Syriac Christianity. After surveying the sparse accounts of the origins of the

Syriac New Testament in general, we consider the origins and preservation of

the Gospel of Mark in the Syriac traditions. This includes its attestation in the

various Syriac New Testament translations, including the presence of Mark in

the Diatessaron. A brief overview of the reception of Mark in Greek will enable

us to offer points of comparison with its reception in Syriac Christianity. We

will then be in a place to assess a small aspect of the reception of the Gospel of

Mark in some segments of Syriac-speaking Christianity.

The transmission of early sacred Christian literature in the Syriac language is notoriously

diverse. In 1902 Eberhard Nestle noted Syriac manuscripts of biblical texts from Lebanon,

Egypt, Mesopotamia, Armenia, India, and China.1 Yet the origins of these textual traditions are

perplexing to say the least. Bruce Metzger claims that [o]f all the early versions of the New

Testament, those in Syriac have raised more problems and provoked more controversies among

modern scholars than any of the others.2 The difficulties arise, Metzger continues, from the

multiplicity of translations and revisions, their relationship to one another and, one could add, the

ambiguity of their origins. Fortunately, the scope of the present paper is rather modest and

touches on these difficulties only at their respective peripheries. Our subject is the Gospel of

Mark in Syriac Christianity; its origins, preservation, and character. This survey begins with a

discussion of the origins of Syriac-speaking Christianity and its accompanying literature in

general. Then we turn to the manners in which the GospelsMark in particularare preserved in

Syriac New Testament literature. We will examine the manuscript attestation of Mark and, where

possible, the character of the Gospel of Mark in Syriac within its respective traditions. We will

also examine clear citations of Mark within Tatians Diatessaron. Next we will offer a brief

overview of the reception of Mark in Greek by way of comparison, before making some

concluding observations regarding the reception of Mark in Syriac Christianity.

An earlier draft of this paper was presented in the Syriac Literature and Interpretations of Sacred Texts section at the

Annual Meeting of the Society for Biblical Literature (Baltimore, 2013). Thanks go to the conveners and

participants for their feedback.

1 Syriac Versions, Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 4 (1902), p. 645.

2 Bruce M. Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament, Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations

(Oxford: Clarendon, 1977), p. 3.

2

1. Christianity in Syriac-Speaking Communities.3

The origins of Syriac-speaking Christianity are vague. Much depends upon conjecture and

inference, as historical sources are both scant and unreliable.4 What can be deduced, however, is

typically drawn from two geographical vantage points: Edessa and Arbela.

Edessa, today known as Urfa in modern Turkey,5 was the capital of an independent buffer

state (Osrhone) between the Roman and the Parthian Empires.6

Eusebius (ca. 304 C.E., H.E.

1.13.120) reports that Christianity came to that city when Thaddaeus, one of the original

disciples of Jesus (Mark 3.18; Matt 10.3), was sent to Edessa by the apostle Thomas and

influenced King Abgar Ukkama (the Black; d. ca 50 C.E.7) to conversion. This is corroborated

by a late fourth century Syriac document called the Doctrine of Addai, where Thaddeaus is

3 Metzger, Early Versions, pp. 410.

4 Metzger, Early Versions, p. 5.

5 Kathleen E. McVey, Edessa, in The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (D. N. Freedman, Ed.; New York: Doubleday,

1996), pp. 2.284287. See especially A. F. J. Klijn's Edessa, die Stadt des Apostels Thomas (Giessen: Neukirchen-

Vluyn, 1965), and J. B. Segal's Edessa 'the Blessed City' (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970).

6 Metzger, Early Versions, p. 5. It was ruled by Nabateans at the eastern edge of the Roman Empire from ca. 132

B.C.E. to 240 C.E. and at one point (214 C.E.) declared a Roman colonia with its environs named Osrhone with

Edessa as its capital. It was elevated to the status of metropolis in 231 by Alexander Severus, then reduced to

colonia again by Gordian in 242. In the later third century Diocletian divided Osrhone into two parts, Osrhone and

Mosopotamia, with Edessa retained as capital of the former. McVey, Edessa, p. 2.284; J.B. Chabot, Incerti

auctoris Chronicon Pseudo-Dionysianum vulgo dictum (CSCO 91; Louvain: L. Durbecq, 1953), pp. 2023. See also

H.J.W. Drijvers, Cults and Beliefs at Edessa (Leiden: Brill, 1980), H.J.W. Drijvers, The Persistence of Pagan Cults

and Practices in Christian Syria, in East of Byzantium: Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period (ed. N. G.

Garsoian; T. F. Mathews, and R. W. Thomson ; Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 1982), pp. 3543, H.J.W.

Drijvers, Edessa, TRE 9 (1982): 27788, H.J.W. Drijvers, Jews and Christians at Edessa, JJS 36 (1985): 88

102; R. Murray, Characteristics of the Earliest Syriac Christianity, in East of Byzantium: Syria and Armenia in the

Formative Period (ed. N. G. Garsoian; T. F. Mathews; and R. W. Thomson; Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks,

1982), pp. 316.

7 For opinions on the historical identity of the Abgar in question, see F.C. Burkitt, Early Eastern Christianity

(London: J. Murray, 1904); W. Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in the Earliest Christianity (trans. R. Kraft et al.

Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), H.J.W. Drijvers, Edessa und das jdische Christentum, VC 24 (1970): 433; J.B.

Segal, When Did Christianity Come to Edessa? Pp. 17991 in Middle East Studies and Libraries: A Felicitation

Volume for Professor J. D. Pearson (ed. B. C. Bloomfield; London: Mansell Publishing, 1980); R. Murray, Symbols

of Church and Kingdom: A Study in Early Syriac Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), pp. 4

24.

3

known as Addai.8 Another tradition suggests Thomas, rather than Thaddeaus, was the missionary

to Edessa.9 Whichever may be the case, evidence suggests a Christian presence in Edessa by the

second half of the second century. Other accounts are likewise sketchy. A certain Bar Daisan

(Greek ),10 converted to Christianity ca. 180 C.E., is said to have been among the first

Syrians to write learned treatises (as well as hymns) in Syriac (cf. Eusebius, H.E. 4.30.12).11

Accounts also mention a certain Palut who was said to be converted under Addai and

consecrated bishop of Edessa by Serapion of Antioch (ca. 190211; cf. Eusebius, H.E. 1.13;

6.12.26).12

Some texts suggest a degree of establishment and organization by the beginning of the third

century. For example, texts such as the sixth-century Chronicle of Edessa,13

mentions the flood

of Edessa (201 C.E.),14

in which church buildings are destroyed (Chronicle of Edessa, 86).15

Similarly, Eusebius (H.E. 5.23.2) mentions a synod, perhaps held at Edessa, near the end of the

second century, comprised of parishes in Osrhone and its cities regarding the date of Easter

(Pascha) observance. The first bishop of Edessa, Qn (ca. 313), initiates the construction of a


9 Though, Acts of Thomas recounts his death in India (Acts Thom. 12, 15970). Yet some suggests that work and G.

Thomas may have originated in Edessa. Klijn, Edessa, pp. 6483, 10638, but cf. B. Ehlers, Kann das

Thomasevangelium aus Edessa stammen? NovT 12 (1970): 284317. Ephrem Syrus alludes to a transfer and

veneration of Thomas bones at Edessa (Ephrem Car. Nis. 27.62, 42.1.12.2, 49.940). Finally, Egeria came to the

Syrian city (ca. 404417) expressly to see the martyrdom of Thomas, whom she believed to be sent by Jesus to

Abgar (Itin. Eger. 17.1).

10 Metzger, Early Versions, p. 6, n. 2. On Bardesanes cf. Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, pp.

2433.

11 Syrians of the following generation condemn him as a gnostic heretic. Metzger, Early Versions, p. 6.

12 The history is muddled, as one converted by Addia could not live long enough to be ordained by Serapion (ca.

190211). W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 284; Burkitt, Early Eastern

Christianity, p. 35, cited in Metzger Early Versions, p. 6. n. 4. The appointment may have been part of Serapions

efforts against Gnosticism (cf. Eusebius, HE 6.12).

13 McVey, Edessa, pp. 2.284287.

14 I. Guidi, ed. Chronica Minora I. CSCO 1 (Latin trans. CSCO 2; Louvain: Peeters, 1955), 2.4.

15 B. H. Cowper, ed. Chronicle of Edessa, Journal of Sacred Literature 5 (1864): 2845. Metzger, Early Versions,

p. 7 n. 1.

4

church buildings around the time of Constantine.16

Yet Walter Bauer (1934) contends that

references to Christian buildings were later interpolations, and traditions regard Abgar are

fictitious.17

Instead, Bauer posited, various heretical groups (Marcion, Bardaisan, Mani, etc.)

were present in the late third century, with what became orthodox Christianity a relative

latecomer in the fourth century (with the consecration of Palut as bishop of Antioch). 18

This has

been a dominant view for Edessa, though not for all Syriac Christianity.19

The other center of Syriac-speaking Christianity cited by Metzger is Arbela, a city east of the

Tigris River in the Adiabene region.20

Its origin is accounted in a collection of biographical tales

composed ca. 550 C.E. This collection, the Chronicles of Arbela, suggests Christianitys arrival

in the region through the work of Addai during the reign of emperor Trajan (98117 C.E.),21

perhaps in connection with the Jewish population there. Metzger suggests that the significant

number of early Syrian bishops with Jewish names lends support to this inference.22

Though

evidence from Arbela is comparatively thin, Metzger observes evidence of Syriac Christianity

from elsewhere. He cites an inscription of a certain Bishop Abercius from the latter half of the

second century in the countryside of Syria between Nisibis and the Euphrates.23

Also extant by

225 C.E. were some twenty ecclesiastical jurisdictions in the Tigris-Euphrates valley and on the

16

I. Guidi, ed. Chronica Minora I. CSCO 1 (Latin trans. CSCO 2; Louvain: Peeters, 1955), 4.23.

17 Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in the Earliest Christianity.

18 So also H.J.W. Drijvers, Edessa und das jdische Christentum, VC 24 (1970): 433. For arguments against

Bauers view, see A. Vbus, History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient (Vol. 1; CSCO 184: Louvain: Peeters,

1958), pp. 3108; followed by G. Quispel, The Discussion of Judaic Christianity, VC 22 (1968): 8193 and

Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom, pp. 424. He supports this claim with Ephraem the Syrians objection to

designation of the orthodox Christians as Palutians (Eph. Syr. HCH 22, esp. 22.110), suggesting that since

Marcionites were the first to that city they were designated as simply Christians. McVey, Edessa, pp. 2.28487.

19 McVey, Edessa, pp. 2.284287, citing Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom, pp. 424.


21 Metzger, Early Versions, p. 7 n. 5, citing Eduard Sachau, Der Chronik von Arbela: Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis des

altesten Christentums im Orient (AbhBer, Nr. 6; Berlin: Knigl. Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1915), p. 42.

22 Metzger, Early Versions, p. 7. Josephus (Ant. 20.2.15) records the conversion of royal figures of the region,

including King Izates of Adiabene, during the reign of Claudius (4154 C.E.)


5

borders of Persia alone.24

Regardless of its historical origins, it seems Christianity is well

established in Syriac-speaking Eastern regions in the middle of the second century, Edessa,

capital of Osrhone, do not come under Roman dominion until Emperor Caracala (216 C.E.).25

The uniqueness of Syriac Christianity, as is often pointed out, is that seems to have been the first

expression of that religion that had not been under the extensive influence of Hellenism.

2: Origins of the Syriac New Testament.

The origins of Syriac Christian literary activity is likewise difficult. Some suggest Edessa as the

likely origin of early literature, such as the Odes of Solomon26

and the Testament of Adam, as

well as traditions regarding the origins of the Gospel of Thomas.27

But the origins of the Syriac

NT, both in its constituent parts and as a collection, are difficult and disputed.28

The presence of

Christianity in Syriac-speaking regions of the east around the middle of the second century C.E.

suggests Christian literature in general, and some narrative account of Jesus in particular. Yet

whether that was in the form of the harmony of Tatians Diatessaron or individual Gospels is

unclear.29

One scholar suggests the Gospel of Thomas is the earliest Syriac account of the life of

24

Metzger, Early Versions, p. 8; citing Sachau, Der Chronik, pp. 6162.

25 Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford:

Clarendon Press, 1987), p. 113.

26 However, the date of the Odes of Solomon is disputed, ranging from 80 to 210 C.E.

27 McVey, Edessa, pp. 2.284287. She cites the first known Syriac author, Bardaisan (154222 C.E.), as residing

in Edessa where he was connected with King Abgar VIII.

28 This section draws largely from Metzger, Early Versions, pp. 810. For canon among Syiac-speaking Christians,

see Metzger, Early Versions, pp. 475; Theodor Zahn, Das Neue Testament Theodors von Mopsuestia und der

ursprngliche Kanon der Syrer, Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift xi (1900): 788806; Julias A. Brewer, The History of

the New Testament Canon in the Syrian Church, American Journal of Theology iv (1900): pp. 6498, 34563;

Walter Bauer, Der Apostolos der Syrer in der Zeit von der Mitte des vierlen Jahrhunderts bis zu Spaltung der

syrischen Kirche (Giessen: J. Ricker, 1903); Mauricius Gordillo, Theologia orientalium cum latinorum comparata

(Orientalia christiana anelecta, clviii; Rome: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1960); E.B. Eising,

Zur Geschicthe des Kanons der Heiligen Schrift in der ostsyrischen Kirche im ersten Jahrtausend, Diss.,

Wrtzburg, 1972.

29 F. Haase (Zur altesten syrischen Evangelienubcrsetzung, TQ 101 [1930]: 270) argues that these communities

employed portions of Christian literature in translation for liturgical uses, whereas Arthur Vbus (Studies in the

History of the Gospel Text in Syriac [CSCO ocxviii; Louvain: Peeters, 1951], pp. 1820, citing Eusebius, H.E.

4.22.8) suggests the Gospel according to the Hebrews was used in the churchs earliest stages.

6

Jesus, dating perhaps thirty to forty years before Tatians Diatessaron.30 Though that gospel is

extant only in Coptic, scholars (H.-Ch. Peuch, G. Garitte, A. Guillaumon, G. Quispel) have long

observed semitisms which suggest a possible origin in Syria.31

To complicate matters still

further, the relationship between the Gospel of Thomas and Tatians Diatessaron remains

unclear.32

It was once held that the two originated in Syria, perhaps from the same Syrian

Vorlage.33

More recently, one scholar argues that the Gospel of Thomas was composed originally

in Syriac and depends heavily on the Diatessaron.34

But the methodological queries have

rendered the thesis unpersuasive to some scholars.35

According to the Doctrine of Addai, 36

the

Gospel, which Metzger takes to refer to Tatians Diatessaron, 37 was to be read along with

select sacred writings.38

This may indicate that the earliest canon of Eastern Syrian Churches

contained the compilation of Tatian rather than the individual gospels.39

30

Metzger, Early Versions, p. 9, citing H. S. Pelscr, The Origin of the Ancient Syriac New Testament Texts A

Historical Study, De fructu oris sui: Essays in Honour of Adrianus van Selms (ed. I. H. Eybcrs, et al.; Pretoria

Oriental Series 9, ed. by A. van Selms, ix; Leiden: Brill, 1971), pp. 161162.

31 Beate Blatz, The Coptic Gospel of Thomas, in New Testament Apocrypha (revised ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher;

English translation edited by R. McL. Wilson; vol 1; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991), p. 112, and

literature cited there. Cf. also A. F. J. Klijn, Christianity in Edessa and the Gospel of Thomas, NovT 14 (1972):

7077.


33 J.E. Mnard, Lvangile selon Thomas (Leiden: Brill, 1975); G. Quispel, The Gospel of Thomas Revisited, in

Colloque international sur les Textes de Nag Hammadi (ed. B. Barc; Louvain: Peeters, 1981), pp. 218266. See also

A. Baker, The Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron, JTS 16 (1965): 449454.

34 N. Perrin, Thomas and Tatian: The Relationship between the Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron (Academia

Biblica 5; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature; Leiden: Brill, 2002). This would require a date after 170 C.E.

35 See esp. P.J. Williams review in EJT 13.2 (2004): 13940; J. Joosten, AS 2.1 (2004): 12630. Perrins argument

depends on his of catchwords he finds in his reconstructed Syriac text, where he finds some 502 catchwords, as

opposed to 263 in his retroverted Greek, or 269 in the extant Coptic.

36 This section draws from Metzger, Canon, pp. 113119.

37 Canon, p. 114.

38 Cited in Metzger, Canon, p. 113; translation, George Phillips The Doctrine of Addai, the Apostle (London:

Trbner & Co., 1876).

39 Metzger, Canon, p. 218.

7

Accounts of NT books in western Syria begins with Theophilus of Antioch (fl. 180 C.E.) who,

according to Eusebius (HE 4.20.1), was the sixth bishop of that city. The Christian presence in

this cited has already been noted in the NT (cf. Acts 11.26; and summary above). Among his

various works we find a particular reverence for the Hebrew Scriptures as sacred writings (Ad

Autolycum 1.14; cf. 2.9). Similar comments are made with regard to the Gospels of Matthew and

John, with a quotation from Luke, all of which he claims, like the prophets [of the Hebrew

Bible], are inspired by one Spirit of God (Ad Autolycum 3.2; cf. 2.22; 3.13). Metzger observes

that by the time of Theophilus the NT at Antioch consisted of at least three Gospels (Mark is not

mentioned by Theophilus).40

Around 200 C.E., Theophilus successor as bishop of Antioch was a

Serapion. As mentioned above, Serapion is noted for his dealings with disputed books,

particularly the use of a gospel attributed to Peter (Gospel of Peter). Finding it tainted by

Docetism Serapion, according to Eusebius, the only record we have of this incident, requested

suspension of the works use pending his further review of it. He indicates his likely rejection of

it, given his concern over writings falsely attributed to Peter or other apostles (Eusebius, H.E.

6.12.3). It seems that it was not until the fifth century that Bishop Rabbula of Edessa (d. 436)

urged its replacement with the four distinct gospels. Later Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus (east of

Antioch; ca. 393ca. 466 C.E.) found some two hundred copies of the Diatessaron, which he

supplanted with copies of the individual Gospels (Treatise on Heresies 1.20).41

3. Gospel of Mark in Syriac:

3.1 The Gospel of Mark in the Old Syriac Tradition.

The Gospel of Mark is extant in a number of Syriac traditions. In the so-called Old Syriac42

Mark is sparsely attested.43

The four NT gospels are only found in two incomplete manuscripts.

40

Metzger, Canon, p. 119. Also Acts, a collection of Pauls letters, and perhaps Revelation.

41 He also wrote noted commentaries on certain OT books and the writings of Paul. He, like Chrysostom (ca. 347

407) made no use of the smaller Catholic epistles or Revelation.

42 F. C. Burkitt, Euangelion da-Mepharreshe: The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, with the Readings of the

Sinai-Palimpsest (2 vols; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1904).

43 Old Syriac texts largely reflect Western text type and preserve readings dating from the end of the second or early

third centuries C.E. Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission,

Corruption, and Restoration (4th

ed; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 9697.

8

The Curetonian (Syrc; Add. MS. 14451)

44 is a parchment copied in the fifth century in beautiful

Estangela script. This very lacunose manuscript contains from Mark only 16.17b20.45 The

second manuscript of the Old Syriac tradition is known as Sinaiticus (Syrs; MS. Sin. Syr. 30),

46 a

palimpsest copied in the fifth or fourth century.47

142 of its original 166 leaves survive, including

Mark 1.12b44a; 2.214.17; 5.126a; 6.5b16.8.48 The Curetonian and Sinaitic are not identical

texts but are sufficiently similar to treat together.49

Unfortunately, in Mark the two manuscripts

have nothing in common.50

Though we can observe that the last twelve verses of Mark are

omitted in Sinaitic but included by Curetonian. This version likely originates from the third

century and underwent subsequent revisions.51

Its style has been chided as "the wholly

44

Edited by William Cureton, Remains of a Very Antient Recension of the Four Gospels in Syriac (London: John

Murray, 1858).

45 It also contains Matt 1.18.22; 10.3223.25a; John 1.142a; 3.5b7.37; 14.10b12a, 15b19a, 21b24a, 26b29a;

Luke 2.48b3.16a; 7.33b15.21; 17.2424.44a. Metzger, Early Versions, p. 37. Additional leaves containing Luke

15.2216.12; 17.123; John 7.378.19 (Orient Quad. 528), published with a re-edited Curetonian text by Burkitt,

Euangelion da-Mepharreshe.

46 Metzger and Ehrman (Text, p. 96) observe that the Sinaitic text is thought to represent a slightly earlier form than

the Curetonian, even though in some places it may have corruptions that the Curetonian has escaped.

47 It was discovered by Agnes Smith Lewis at St Catherines monastery on Mt Sinai in 1892. For photographic

facsimiles, see Arthur Hjelt, Syrus Sinaiticus (Helsingfors: Akademische Buchhandlung, 1930). Agnes Smith Lewis,

The Old Syriac Gospels (London: Williams and Norgate, 1910); Agnes Smith Lewis, A Translation of the Four

Gospels from the Syriac of the Sinaitic Palimpsest (London: MacMillan, 1894), esp. pp. ixxxxiv for a helpful

introduction. See also Janet Soskice, The Sisters of Sinai: How Two Lady Adventurers Discovered the Hidden

Gospels (Knopf: New York, 2009). The relation between the Old Syriac and Tatians Diatessaron is debated.

48 It also includes Matt 1.16.10a; 7.312.4a, 6b25a, 2916.15a; 17.11b20.24; 21.20b25.15a, 1720a, 25b26,

3228.7; Luke 1.36b5.28a; 6.1224.52; John 1.25b47a; 2.164.37; 5.6b25a, 46b18.31a; 19.40b21.25.

Metzger, Early Versions, p. 38. The standard edition is Agnes Smith Lewis, The Old Syriac Gospels.

49 Metzger, Early Versions, p. 39. Their relationship is disputed. Some take them as copies of a single exemplar,

while others suggest they are the work of translators working independently.

50 We find small features, such as at Matt 19.16 both manuscripts read , whereas ) B (among others)

render simply . The insertion is a harmonization with the Markan parallel (Mark 10.17). Metzger notes a

few readings peculiar to the Old Syriac traditions, but observes none in Marks Gospel.

51 Old Syriac is often associated with Western readings. Though this generalization is disputed by Alain G. Martin,

"Le palimpseste syriaque du Sina et le codex de Bze, in Codex Bezae: Studies from the Lunel Colloquium, June

1994 (ed. D.C. Parker and C. Amphoux; Leiden: Brill, 1996), p. 254; Barbara Aland, "Die bersetzungen ins

Syrische, 2. Neues Testament, TRE 6 (1980), 190191. See also Peter J. Williams, The Syriac Versions of the

9

unscientific product of a fresh religious impulse52 on the one hand, and acclaimed for its artistry

on the other.53

Lyon observes a few characteristics of Old Syriac Mark worth our noting. In general, Old Syriac

Mark favors idioms and Jewish words often removed from the Peshitta. For instance, Old Syriac

Marks (7:35) is familiar in Jewish Aramaic, though changed to in Peshitta

Mark.54

Old Syriac Mark will use for words such as or , but not for

(15.13). Old Syriac Mark will use as a narrative formula, where the Peshitta, and typically

the Greek, does not. Marks (7.31) in Old Syriac Mark is

, where the form is typically used with reference to a proper name. Here Peshitta

Mark prefers the more general . In this respect, the Old Syriac Mark exhibits a zeal for

accuracy and even a familiarity with the geographical location in view.55 Old Syriac Mark is at

times offers some stylistic clarifications.56

For example, for (Mark 7.32) the Old Syriac

Mark chooses , whereas Peshitta Mark has . Old Syriac of Mark tends to include the

possessive whether present in the Greek or not. Finally, Old Syriac Mark offers adjustments to

the Greek for the sake of sensible Syriac. For instance, for the at 7.33, Old Syriac Mark

uses , which is not a lexical equivalent to the Greek but nonetheless appropriate to the

context. Peshitta Mark chooses , which is closer lexically to the Greek but not quite so

fitting contextually.

3.2 The Gospel of Mark in the Peshitta

New Testament, in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis

(ed. B.D. Ehrman and M.W. Holmes; Second Edition; Leiden: Brill, 2012), p. 148.

52 Gnther Zuntz, The Ancestry of the Harklean New Testament (The British Academy Supplemental Papers 7;

London: Oxford University Press, 1945), 10.

53 Jeffrey Paul Lyon, Syriac Gospel Translations: A Comparison of the Language and Translational Method Used in

the Old Syriac, the Diatessaron, and the Peshitto (CSCO 548; Leuven: Peeters, 1994), pp. 190192.

54 Lyon, Syriac Gospel Translations, p. 88.



10

Mark is well attested in the Syriac Peshitta (Syrp), a tradition produced in the beginning of the

fifth century57

and likely a revision of the Old Syriac.58

There is considerable uniformity among

the more than 350 manuscripts of the Peshitta NT, even though it may represent the work of

several hands in various parts of the NT.59

Among the Peshitta manuscripts Marks Gospel is

attested in some of the earliest and best. A number contain all four Gospels,60

or a portion of

them.61

British Museum MS. Add. 14459 dates from the fifth century and contains a portion of

Matthew and all of Mark.62

British Museum MS. Add. 17117, dating from the fifth or sixth

57

Metzger and Ehrman, Text, p. 98. It was once held that the Peshitta was in existence by the end of the second or at

least by the beginning of the third century C.E. Yet most today date it either to the early fifth century, or, perhaps

earlier, but employed in Edessa as the official text until the end of the fifth or beginning of the sixth century. Cf. F.

C. Burkitt, S. Ephraims Quotations from the Gospel (Text and Studies, vii; Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1901; repr. Nendeln, Liechtenstein, 1967); Arthur Vbus, Investigations into the Text of the New Testament

Used by Rabbula of Edessa (Contributions of Baltic University, no. 59; Pinneberg: Baltic University, 1947); Arthur

Vbus, Studies in the History of the Gospel Text in Syriac (CSCO cxxviii, Subsidia, 3; Louvain: Imprimerie

Orientaliste, 1951), pp. 7286. See also Matthew Black, Rabbula of Edessa and the Peshitta, BJRL 33 (1951): 209.

Perhaps to supplant the divergent, competing Old Syriac. Metzger and Ehrman, Text, p. 98. As a whole, it contains

the entire NT except 2 Peter, 2, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. Vbus (Studies in the History of the Gospel Text in

Syriac) contends the work of Rabbula of Edessa (ca. 411431 C.E.), once thought to be responsible for this

translation, represents instead a stage of the development of the text from the Old Syriac to the final form of the

Peshitta.

58 Vbus, Studies in the History of the Gospel Text in Syriac. It is noted for its omission of 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John,

Jude and Revelation. Metzger presumes the Peshitta received some degree of status prior to the split of the Syrian

Church in 431 C.E. because of its acceptance in both Eastern and Western branches of Syrian Christentom. Metzger

and Ehrman, Text, p. 98.

59 The Gospels resemble a Byzantine text-type. Metzger and Ehrman, Text, p. 98. The standard edition is Pusey and

Gwilliam, The New Testament in Syriac. The more recent work out of Berlin (Das Neue Testament in Syrischer

berlieferung, ed. B. Aland, et al; Berlin: DeGruyter, 1986, 1991, 1995, 2002) does not yet include the Gospels.

60 Codex Phillipps 1388, late fifth century [this is a manuscript marked by considerable variances, Matthew Black,

The Text of the Peshitta Tetraeuangelium, Studia Paulina in Honorem Johannes de Zwaan Septuagenarii

(Haarlem: De Erven F. Bohn, 1953), p. 27; British Museum MS Add. 14453 and 14470, both fifth or sixth century;

Vatican Cod. Sir. 12, dates from 548 in Edessa; Plut. I. Cod. 56, dates to 586.

61 British Museum MS. Add. 14459, dating 528538 C.E., contains Luke and John alone.

62 See G. H. Gwilliam, An Account of a Syriac Biblical Manuscript of the Fifth Century with Special Reference to

its Bearing on the Text of the Syriac Version of the Gospels, in Studia Biblica: Essays in Biblical Archaeology and

Criticism and Kindred Subjects (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1885), pp. 15174.

11

century, contains Matthew and Mark 1.19.10. Finally, Morgan MS. 783, dating from the second

half of the fifth or first half of the sixth century contains portions of three Gospels, and begins at

Mark 5.23.63

Though portions of the Peshitta lack uniformity,64

the Gospels exhibit

characteristics that suggest it is a revision of the Old Syriac based on Greek.65

Peshitta Mark typically renders Markan formulas, such as , only sparingly with

(9:25; 16.61). Peshitta Mark prefers to omit the initial in such instances (Mark 4.1; 7.31; 8.25),

whereas it is present in Old Syriac Mark thirteen times.66

Lyon finds that Peshitta Mark prefers

to find a suitable rendering of every Greek word.67 For instance Marks

(7:31) rendered in the Peshitta . The is Hebrew/ Aramaic ( / ).

The proper form is , which is used of proper names in Old Syriac Mark but is unattested in

Peshitta Mark. Peshitta Mark will translate toward lexical proximity to the Greek even where

context may suggest otherwise for the Syriac. Lyon finds, for instance, that Peshitta Mark reads

for at 7.33. This is an appropriate lexical choice, but perhaps not quite so fitting as

Old Syriac Marks .

3.3 The Gospel of Mark in Heraclean (Syrh)/Philoxenian (Syr

ph) Version(s).

Metzger dubs this matter among the most confused and confusing tangles connected with the

Syriac versions of the Bible.68 Several Syriac manuscripts contain colophons that are variously

63

One (dated) study of the Peshitta of Mark looks carefully to its textual representation. In an article published in

1944, Hope Broome Downs examines all the readings in Mark where that of the Peshitta and Old Syriac (primarily

Sinaitic) agree against all other witnesses (finding seventy) and where the agree with support from other witnesses.

She finds that a large number of Peshitta readings of Mark agree with the Old Syriac rather than a belonging to a

later form of the text. Hope Broome Downs, The Peshitto as a Revision: Its Background in Syriac and Greek Texts

in Mark, JBL 63 (1944): 14159. The article summarizes her (unpublished) PhD dissertation from Bryn Mawr

College (1943).

64 See Alain G. Martin, La traduction de en syriaque, Filologa Neotestamentaria 12 (1999), p. 28.

65 Williams, Syriac Versions, p. 151. The Peshitta for the Gospels resembles a Byzantine text time. Metzger and

Ehrman, Text, p. 98. They go on to suggest that the Peshitta received some degree of status prior to the split of the

Syrian Church in 431 C.E. because of its acceptance in both Eastern and Western branches of Syrian Christendom.




12

interpreted. One reading suggests that the production of a Syriac version (508 C.E.) for a certain

Philoxenus, bishop of Mabbug (Hierapolis) was re-issued by Thomas of Harkel (Heraclea),

bishop of Mabbug (616), who simply added marginal notations from a few Greek manuscripts.69

This view suggests a single version republished with variant readings added in the margins.

Others hold that Thomas thoroughly revised the work of Philoxenus, adding marginal notations

not included in the text.70

This view holds that there are two entirely distinct versions, with the

later one indicated in the marginal readings.71

The Harclean version is noted for its often

cumbersome adaptation to the Greek, seemingly at the expense of clarity.72

The most important

69

This view is held by A. C. Clark, The Michigan Fragment of the Acts, JTS 29 (1927): 19; A. C. Clark, 'The

Philoxenian Text, in The Acts of the Apostles (ed. A. C. Clark; Oxford: Clarendon, 1933), pp. 30529; Silva New,

The Harclean Version of the Gospels, HTR 21 (1928): 37695; W. G. Kmmel, Textkritik und Textgeschichte

des Neuen Testaments, 1914-1937, ThRu, N.F., 10 (1938): 32; William Duff McHardy, James of Edessa's

Citations from the Philoxenian Text of the Book of Acts, JTS 43 (1942): 168.

70 This view is held by G. H. Bernstein, De Charklensi Novi Testamenti Translatione Syriaca Commentatio

(Breslau: Kessinger, 1837), p. 5; J. Gwynn, Remnants of the Later Syriac Versions of the Bible (London: Text and

Translation Society, 1909; repr. Amsterdam: Academic Publishers Associated, 1973); William Wright, A Short

History of Syriac Literature (London: A. C. Black, 1894), p. 16; F. G. Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism

of the New Testament (2nd ed.; London: Macmillan, 1912), pp. 1647; James H. Ropes, The Text of Acts (London:

MacMillan, 1926), p. clx; K. Lake, The Text of the New Testament (6th edn; London: Rivingtons, 1928), p. 42;

William H. P. Hatch, The Subscription in the Chester Beatty Manuscript of the Harclean Gospels, HTR 30 (1937):

143; G. Zuntz, The Ancestry of the Harklean New Testament (British Academy Supplemental Papers, No. VII.;

London: Oxford University Press, 1945), p. 76; Arthur Vbus, New Data for the Solution of the Problem

Concerning the Philoxenian Version, Spiritus el veritas. Festschrift Karl Kundzin (Eutin: Ozolin, 1953), pp. 169

86; tentatively, Matthew Black, The Syriac Versional Tradition, in Die alten bersetzungen des Neuen

Testaments, die Kirchenvterzitate und Lektionare (ed. K. Aland; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1972), pp. 139

41.

71 The tradition is noted for its inclusion, likely for the first time in Syriac, of 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and

Revelation.

72 Metzger, Earl Versions, p. 69. Harclean manuscripts are about sixty in number. See Metzger, Early Versions, pp.

7172. For example, where Mark 14.58 reads , the Peshitta renders, appropriately,

(after three days I will build another not made by hands). Yet the Harclean

renders the preposition with awkward literalness: (through

[literally, through the hand] three days, I will build another). Metzger further observes that particularly in

comparison with the Peshitta, the Harclean version employs Greek loan words over native Syriac terms. Metzger,

Early Versions, p. 69.

13

of the some sixty Harclean manuscripts73

contain the four Gospels, or portions thereof, and date

from seventh to the twelfth centuries C.E. Yet another curious wrinkle in this difficult textual

tradition is the presence of a harmony of the Passion Narratives of the four Gospels in more than

two dozen Harclean manuscripts.74

This tradition, called the Harclean Passion harmony, seems to

have circulated in two distinct forms but follow the same general chronology and some

preference for Matthean material.75

This work is distinct from the Diatessaron in that, rather than

re-arranging the order of Gospel materials, as does Tatian, it prefers to duplicate material. The

Harclean is likely a revision of the Philoxenian version and was widely used, as attested by its

some 125 extant manuscripts, most of which are of the gospels.76

3.4 The Gospel of Mark in Palestinian Syriac.

The Palestinian Syriac (Syrpal

) version, more recently known as the Christian Palestinian

Aramaic version,77

is known primarily from a lectionary of the Gospels in three manuscripts78

from the eleventh and twelfth centuries. These are significant in that, contrary to most other

Syriac lectionaries, the Palestinian Syriac bears close affinity to those in Greek in their

sequencing of pericopae, in addition to the selection and employment of respective passages.79

Two features are worth mentioning. First, the text bears evidence of Diatessaric influence.80

73

Metzger, Early Versions, pp. 7172.

74 See J. P. P. Martin, Introduction a la critique textuelle du Noweau Testament (Partie pratique 3; Paris:

Maisonneuve Frres & C. Leclerc, 1885), pp. 12144; J. P. P. Martin, Le Dia\ tessa/rwn de Tatien, RQH 33

(1883): 33678.

75 Morris A. Weigelt, Diatessarit Harmonies of the Passion Narrative in the Harclean Syriac Version (PhD diss;

Princeton Theological Seminary, 1969).

76 Williams, Syriac Versions, 154; J.S. Siker, "The Canonical Status of the Catholic Epistles in the Syriac New

Testament," JTS 38 (1987): 316; Aland, "Die bersetzungen ins Syrische, p. 193.

77 Williams, Syriac Versions, p. 155.

78 Agnes Smith Lewis and Margaret Dunlop Gibson, The Palestinian Syriac Lectionary of the Gospels (London:

Kegal Paul, Trench, Trbner & Co., 1899); Agnes Smith Lewis, Codex Climaci rescriptus, Horae semiticae 8

(1909): 2731.

79 Bruce M. Metzger, A Comparison of the Palestinian Syriac Lectionary and the Greek Gospel Lectionary', in

Neotestamentica et semitica. Studies in Honour of Matthew Black (ed. Earle Ellis and Max Wilcox; Edinburgh: T&T

Clark, 1969), pp. 20920.

80 See Matthew Black, The Palestinian Syriac Gospels and the Diatessaron (Part 1), OC 36 (1941): 101111.

14

Second, it frequently employs Graecisms, such as rather than the more common

for 0Ihsou~j. Similarly, even the name Pe/troj, commonly rendered in the Curetonian and

Peshitta (Matt 16.18), is transliterated (cf. 1 Pet 1.1 Pes) in the Palestinian.81 Furthermore,

the narrative of Mark 7.34 the Greek reads an Aramaic transliteration, , followed by an

explanatory , the latter phrase (omitted by Curetonian and Peshitta) is rendered

here: be opened, which is be opened ( ).

3.5 The Gospel of Mark in the Diatessaron:

An important, albeit complex, witness to the Syriac Gospels is Tatians Diatessaron (to\ dia\

tessa/rwn),82 an interweaving of the four Gospels into a single, coherent account which

generally follows the chronology of the Gospel of John, with Synoptic accounts interwoven. The

problems with the Diatessaron are legion. Williams observes that in addition to the debate as to

the original language (Greek or Syriac), hardly a single phrase in the text of Tatians

Diatessaron [is] beyond dispute.83 Tatian is said to have rendered his Greek Diatessaron into

Syriac himself around 172 C.E.84

Whether the individual Gospels were already extant in Syriac at

81

For further examples, see Metzger, A Comparison of the Palestinian Syriac Lectionary and the Greek Gospel

Lectionary, p. 213.

82 Tatian was converted to Christianity while in Rome by Justin Martyr (ca. 110165). He is known to have written a

number of works, though only his Lo/goj pro\j #Ellhnaj (Oration to the Greeks) is preserved in its entirety. The

treatise depicts its authors antagonism toward Hellenism, but also reveals some of his own background. Metzger,

Canon, 114. For the text of the Diatessaron, see L. Leloir, Saint Ephrem, Commentaire de lvangile concordant:

Texte syriaque (Dublin: Hodges Figgis, 1963); L. Leloir, Le commentaire dphrem sur le Diatessaron: Quarante et

un folios retrouvs, RB 94 (1987): 481518; Saint Ephrem's Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron.(Translated and

edited by Carmel McCarthy; Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement, 2; New York: Oxford University Press, 1994).

83 Williams, Syriac Versions, pp. 144145.

84 On the original language of the Diatessaron, see Metzger, Early Versions, pp. 3036. W.L. Petersen, Tatians

Diatessaron: Its Creation, Dissemination, Significance, and History in Scholarship (Leiden: Brill, 1994), draws

attention to two other harmonies around the time of Tatian, or shortly thereafter. Jerome (Ep. 121.6) says,

Theophilus [bishop of Antioch] put together into one work the words of the four Gospels. Eusebius (Ep. Carp.

1.3233??) says, Ammonius the Alexandrine has left us the gospel as a diatessaron, wherein Matthew is produced

and parallel pericopae from the other three alongside. Everett Ferguson, Factors Leading to the Selection and

Closure of the New Testament Canon, in The Canon Debate (ed. Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders;

Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002), p. 302 n. 30.

15

this point is debated.85

Yet the extent of the use of his Diatessaron in the region of Edessa

suggests its considerable influence.86

Unfortunately, by the fifth century Theodoret (ca. 423) destroyed perhaps as many as two

hundred copies of the Diatessaron because of Tatians eventual condemnation as a heretic

(Theodoret, Treatise on Heresies, i.20). No complete copy is known today. A parchment

fragment found in 1933 contains fourteen lines of Greek text from n later than 257 C.E., and

contains an excerpt of the Diatessaron.87

The text recounts Joseph of Aramathias coming for

Jesus body:

[ the mother of the sons of Zebed]ee (Matt. 27.56) and Salome (Mark 15.40) and the wives [of those who] had followed him from [Galile]e to see the crucified (Luke 23.49bc). And [the da]y was Preparation; the Sabbath was daw[ning] (Luke 23.54). And when it was evening (Matt 27.57), on the Prep[aration], that

85

Ulrich B. Schmid (The Diatessaron of Tatian, in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research:

Essays on the Status Quaestionis [second edition; ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes; NTTSD 42; Leiden:

Brill, 2013], p. 123) observes that there is a wide consensus in the study of the Syriac gospel tradition that the

Diatessaron is in some way textually linked to the separate Gospels. More recently, Giovanni Lenzi ("Differenze

Teologiche tra le Vetus Syra e il Diatessaron," Liber Annuus 56 [2006]: 13178) suggests the Old Syriac and

Diatessaron are distinct, indeed independent, renderings.

86 see Metzger, Canon, pp. 218f. Moreover, Tatian seemed to have held some sway with respect to other NT books.

For instance, we learn from Jerome that Tatian rejected some of Pauls letters, though did accept that to Titus, and

references passages from Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Hebrews. See

Metzger, Canon, pp. 116117. W.L. Petersen (Tatians Diatessaron: Its Creation, Dissemination, Significance, and

History in Scholarship [Leiden: Brill, 1994]), draws attention to two other harmonies around the time of Tatian, or

shortly thereafter. Jerome (Ep. 121.6) says, Theophilus [bishop of Antioch] put together into one work the words

of the four Gospels. Eusebius (Ep. Carp. 1.3233??) says, Ammonius the Alexandrine has left us the gospel as a

diatessaron, wherein Matthew is produced and parallel pericopae from the other three alongside. Everett Ferguson,

Factors Leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon, pp. 295320 in The Canon Debate

(ed. Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002), p. 302 n. 30.

87 C.B. Wells in C.B. Wells, R.O. Funk, and J.F. Gilliam, The Parchments and Papyri: The Excavations at Dura-

Europos Final Report (vol. 1; ed. A. Perkins; New Haven: Augustin, 1959), pp. 734. In the Mnster catalogue,

the fragment has been assigned the number 0212. Some have rejected the identification of 0212 as part of the

Diatessaron. See D.C. Parker, D.G.K. Taylor, and M.S. Goodacre, The Dura-Europos Gospel Harmony, in Studies

in the Early Text of the Gospels and Acts: The Papers of the First Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism

of the New Testament (ed. D.G.K. Taylor; Texts and Studies 3rd

series vol. 1; Birmingham: Birmingham University

Press, 1999), pp. 192228. See also the rebuttal by Jan Joosten, "The Dura Parchment and the Diatessaron," VC 57

(2003): 159175.

16

is, the day before the Sabbath (Mark 15.42), [there came] up a man (Matt 27.57), be[ing] a member of the

council (Luke 23.50), from Arimathea (Matt 27.57), a c[i]ty of [Jude]a (Luke 23.51), by name Jo[seph]

(Matt 27.57), good and ri[ghteous] (Luke 23.50), being a disciple of Jesus, but se[cret]ly, for fear of the

[Jew]s (John 19.38). And he (Matt 27.57) was looking for [the] k[ingdom] of God (Luke 23.51b). This man

[had] not [con]sented to [their] p[urpose] (Luke 23.51a)88

For our purposes, we see that the majority of the account is, of course, drawn from Matthew and

Luke. Yet Mark is also attested, with the identification of Salome (Mark 15.40) and the

identification of the Preparation as the day before the Sabbath (Mark 15.42).

Other attestation of the Diatessaron is found only through its citation in various homilies and

treatises, most importantly the fourth century commentary on the Diatessaron by Ephraem.89

This is available in two twelfth-century Armenian manuscripts, portions in a late fifth or early

sixth century Syriac manuscript90

as well as evidence in other languages. Other manuscripts,

such as Codex Fuldensis91

and the Arabic Diatessaron, lend value to the structural more than

textual witness.

Ephrems commentary is likely written within a decade of his death in 373 C.E. and is one of the

most important witnesses to the Diatessaron. The single manuscript witness for the commentary

is the Syriac Cheaster Beatty MS709, dating between 400 and 550 C.E. Two Armenian

manuscripbs, both from 1195 C.E. (Venice: Mechitarist Library [S. Lazar], MS 542 [MS A]

and MS 312 [MS B]) translated and edited by Louis Leloir, who also produced a French

88

Translation from Metzger and Ehrman, Text, pp. 132133.

89 Ishodad of Merv (ca. 850 C.E.) cites Tatians Diatessaron to some extent (Cod. Add. 1973 f. 146 r [Cambridge

University Library]), though not unique to Mark (Matt 23.19; Mark 15.15, 20). J. Rendel Harris, Fragments of the

Commentary of Ephrem Syrus upon the Diatessaron (London: C.J. Clay and Sons, 1895), p. 89.

90 Dom Louis Leloir, Saint phrem, Commentaire de lvangile concordant, texte syriaqe (Manuscrit Chester

Beatty 709) (Dublin: Hodges, Figgis & Co Ltd, 1963); cf. L. Leloir, Divergences entre loriginal syriaque et la

version armnienne du commentaire dphrem sur la Diatessaron, in Mlanges, Eugne Tisserant, ii (Vatican City:

Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, 1964), pp. 30331.

91 Codex Fuldensis written before the middle of the 6th century in which the individual texts of the four canonical

Gospels is replaced with a combined and consecutive narrative thereof. The work was commissioned by Victor of

Capua, who offers scares information about the harmony but suggests its likely the work of Tatian. Though scholars

widely believe the Codex Fuldensis Gospel harmony goes back to Tatians Diatessaron, the extent of evident

revisions renders it unsuitable for reconstructing the wording of the Diatessaron. Schmid, The Diatessaron of

Tatian, 120.

17

translation based on a conflation of texts.92

For our purposes we will look for Markan references

in the Chester Beatty MS709.93

Yet as Jeffrey Paul Lyon has indicated,94

so much of Marks

Gospel overlaps with its synoptic counterparts and is employed by the Diatassaron that it is

difficult to discern what is uniquely Markan. So our attention to Markan attestation in the

Diatessaron must proceed by identifying citations of gospels text which are uniquely Markan.

Despite the orientation toward a Johannine framework and the considerable dependence upon

Matthew and Luke, one finds substantial material in Ephrems accounting of the Diatessaron

that can only be from the gospel of Mark39 instances. A complete accounting of such citations,

in Diatessaron order, is provided in the following table:

TABLE: Mark Quote Reference in Ephrems Commentary 1:23 pathprepared (The Birth of John the Baptist Foretold I 10). 1:15 The times are accomplished (The Times are Accomplished V 13) 9:23 If you believe (The Antitheses V 13) 1:15 the times are accomplished, for from henceforth the kingdom of heaven is proclaimed (The

Times are Accomplished V 14)

4:12 what they see, they will not see (To the One Who Has, More will be Given V 19) likely Mk 2:19 For the bridal guests cannot fast while the bridegroom is with them (Discussion on Fasting V

22a)

2:27 The Sabbath was created for the sake of human beings (Picking Corn on the Sabbath V 24) 2:28 ... for human beings (Picking Corn on the Sabbath V 24). 5:29 She perceived within herself that she was healed of her afflictions (Why Jesus Healed a Womb

VI 16)

5:30 Who touched my garments? (Reflections on Physical and Spiritual Touching VII 6) 5:27 she touched his cloak from behind him (Reflections on Physical and Spiritual Touching VII 9) 5:30 Who touched my garments? (Reflections on Physical and Spiritual Touching VII 10) 6:8 the staff (Jesus Sends Forth His Disciples VIII 2) 3:29 He will be guilty of an eternal sin (The Sin that Cannot be Forgiven X 5) 3:30 There is an unclean spirit in him (The Sin that Cannot be Forgiven X 5) 4:8 Thirty, and sixty, and one hundredfold (Jesus Teaches through Parables XI 12) 4:8 Thirty, sixty, and one hundredfold (Jesus Teaches through Parables XI 17) 6:5 he was not able to reveal miracles. In the house of Israel (Jesus in Nazareth XI 25) 2:27 but for human beings (Healing of the Paralytic XIII 6) 15:36 We will see whether Elijah will come and take him down (The Transfiguration XIV 10) 8:25 He saw everything clearly (The Healing of a Blind Man at Bethsaida XIII 13) 9:7 This is my Son and my Beloved. Listen to him (The Transfiguration XIV 9) 9:7 This is my Son and my Beloved. Listen to him (The Transfiguration XIV 9) 9:25 I command you, dumb spirit (The Epileptic Demoniac XIV 15) 9:25 Go forth from him and do not come back again (The Epileptic Demoniac XIV 15)

92

L. Leloir, Ephrem de Nisibe, Commentair de lvangile concordant ou Diatessaron, traduit du syriaque et de

larmnien (SC 121; Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1966).

93 Saint Ephrems Commentary on Tatians Diatessaron (translated and introduced by C. McCarthy; Journal of

Semitic Studies Supplements 2; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993).


18

10:4 But they began to say, Moses allowed us (Divorce XIV 18) 10:21 You are lacking in one thing (The Rich Man XV 4) likely Mk 10:21 he looked at him lovingly (The Rich Man XV 6) 10:21 He looked at him lovingly (The Rich Man XV 7) 10:21 He looked at him lovingly (The Rich Man XV 8) 10:21 He looked at him lovingly (The Rich Man XV 8) 10:3536 For we wish that you would do for us that which we ask of you. He said to them, I will do it

(The Request of James and John XV 18)

10:37 Allow us to sit, one your right and one on your left (The Request of James and John XV 18) 10:37 Allow us to sit on your right and on your left (The Request of James and John XV 18) 10:50 A blind man was sitting near the endfe of the road and his name was Timaeus, son of Timaeus,

and he abandoned his cloak and came (Zacchaeus XV 22) 12:18 The Sadducees came and were saying to him, There is no resurrection of the dead (The

Resurrection of the Dead XVI 22)

7:37 he did all things well (Fig Tree XVI 8) 13:20 If God had not shortened these days, no human being would have been saved (The

Eschatological Discourse XVIII 14)

15:2728 When they had placed him on the cross, they also placed two other evil-doers with him, so that the prophecy, He was numbered among the wicked, would be fulfilled (The Two Robbers XX 22)

Whether or not Tatian, at least as recounted in MS709s record of Ephrems commentary,

omitted any uniquely Markan material is beyond the scope of the present paper. Nor do I wish to

enter the thorny question of whether Tatian was conflating extant Syriac texts or not. Instead, a

few observations can be made: First, it is abundantly evident that the Gospel of Mark is clearly

and unequivocally attested in Tatians Diatessaron from ca. 170 C.E. Second, Markan texts are

conflated with those of Matthew and Luke where Tatian recognized correspondence but where

Mark had unique readings to contribute to the conflated text.95

Third, Tatian retains Markan

narrative96

and discourse97

material.

4. Reception of Mark in Greek Traditions:

4.1: Data pertaining to Marks reception: Before suggesting any conclusions it may be

instructive to sketch the reception of Mark in Greek traditions to offer some perspective. Mark is

95

Further work remains to be done on whether the Markan texts found also in Matthew and/or Luke (as well as

John, for that matter) are demonstrably Markan or not.

96 Mark 1:23 in I 10; 5:29 in VI 16; 5:27 in VII 9; 6:5 in XI 25; 10:4 in XIV 18; 15:3 in XIV 10; 8:25 in

XIII 13; 9:7 in XIV 9; 10:21 in XV 6, 7, 8; 10:3536 in XV 18; 10:37 in XV 18; 10:50 in XV 22; 7:37 in

XVI 8; 15:2728 in XX 22.

97 Mark 1:15 in V 13; 9:23 in V 13; 1:15 in V 14; 4:12 in V 19; 2:19 in V 22a; 2:27 in V 24; XIII 6; 2:28 in

V 24; 5:30 in VII 6, 10; 3:29 in X 5; 3:30 in X 5; 4:8 in XI 12, 17; 9:25 in XIV 15; 10:21 in XV 4; 13:20

in XVIII 14.

19

well attested in Greek manuscript traditions dating from the early third century.98

A papyrus

from the Chester Beatty collection, P45

, contains thirty extant leaves (originally about 220), six of

which contain portions of Mark (4:369:31; 11:2712:28), as well as sections from Matthew,

Luke, John, and Acts. Another papyrus, P88

dates from the fourth century and contains Mark

2:126.99 But it is also the case that more papyrus fragments of Matthew, John and Luke survive

than Mark.100

For the other gospels, we have manuscript evidence of Matthew from ca. 200 C.E.

(P64+67

, Matt 3:9, 15; 5:2022, 2528; 26:78, 10, 1415, 2223, 3133) and John from ca. 115

C.E. (P52

, John 18:3133, 3738).101 Similar indications of importance may be found in the

arrangement of the gospels within early codices.102

The traditional order is Matthew, Mark,

Luke, then John.103

Yet other sequences are also attested, two of which list Mark first. Both of

these traditions, however, are quite late: One is a four-Gospel manuscript in West Saxon dating

98

Fragments of a manuscript from the late second century suggest a codex containing all four (canonical) Gospels.

These fragments, P4, P

64, and P

67, are now recognized as belonging originally to the same ancient manuscript, dating

from the late second century C.E. (T.C. Skeat, The Oldest Manuscript of the Four Gospels? NTS 43 [1997]: 134).

Though it is widely held to at one time to have contained all four Gospels, no fragment from Mark (or John) has

survived. Metzger and Ehrman, Text, p. 53.

99 P

84 dates from the 6

th century and contains portions of Mark (2:25, 89; 6:3031, 3334, 3637, 3941) and the

Gospel of John.

100 Helmut Koester, Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels, HTR 73 (1980): 10530 esp. 108.

101 Adela Yarbrough Collins presumes that, since it is widely accepted that Matthew and Luke both used Mark, it is

sensible to presume that Mark circulated widely in the first (and second?) century (Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark

[Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007], p. 103). Though a logical inference, we are challenged by a paucity of

evidence for wide circulation. Regardless of whether Mark was less circulated than the others or it was widely

circulated but, presumably, supplanted by Matthew and Luke, it seems plausible that Matthew and Luke enjoyed

greater popularity than did Mark. So also Collins, Mark, p. 103; Helmut Koester, Apocryphal and Canonical

Gospels, p. 107; Helmut Koester, History and Development of Marks Gospel, in Colloquy on New Testament

Studies: A Time for Reappraisal and Fresh Approaches (ed. Bruce Corley; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press,

1983), p. 37; Brenda Deen Schildgen, Power and Prejudice: The Reception of the Gospel of Mark (Detroit: Wayne

State University Press, 1999), pp. 3942.

102 When they were first gathered into codices and arranged in a particular order is not known. R.H. Lightfoot, The

Gospel Message of St. Mark (Oxford: Clarendon, 1950), 3.

103 This is found in nearly all Greek manuscripts and likely popularized by Eusebius and Jerome. Metzger, Canon, p.

296.

20

from the latter part of the twelfth century,104

the other likewise a manuscript of the West Saxon

Gospels dating from the twelfth or thirteenth centuries.105

Indisputable citations are difficult to come by. 106

Of the 11,025 words in Mark,107

only 304 have

no parallel in Matthew and 1,282 have no parallel in Luke.108

This means that 97.2% of the

words in Mark have a parallel in Matthew and 88.4% have a parallel in Luke.109

Helmut Koester

has observed: there is no certain quotation from Mark before Irenaeus and Clement of

Alexandria.110 Some authors, such as Clement of Rome (ca. 95 C.E.), Ignatius, Polycarp,

Barnabas, the Didache, and the Martyrdom of Polycarp exhibit familiarity with the synoptic

tradition, but no certain reference to Mark.111

Unambiguous references are found in Justin Martyr

(Dial. 106.3, ca. 150; citing Mark 3:17),112

Origen (Mark 4.12 in Princ. 3.1.7, 16; Mark 10.18 in 104

Mark, Matthew, Luke, John; British Museum MS Royal I A. xiv.

105 Mark, Luke, Matthew, John, Bodleian MS Hatton 38. Metzger, Canon, p. 297.

106 Familiarity with historical figure Mark, and traditions pertaining to his affiliation with Peter and composition of a

gospel, go back to Papias (ca. 140 C.E.), as recounted by Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica ca. 263339 C.E.). Though

this tradition is widespread in other sources, nothing is said here regarding the text of that gospel or its reception.

107 Mark contains 11,025 words, Matthew 18,293 and Luke 19,376 (based on the Nestle-Aland 26

th edition).

108 Joseph B. Tyson and Thomas R. W. Longstaff, Synoptic Abstract (The Computer Bible, vol. 15; Wooster, OH:

College of Wooster, 1978), pp. 16971; cited by Robert H. Stein, The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction (Grand

Rapids: Baker, 1987), p. 48.

109 Stein, Synoptic Problem, p. 48. See also Armin D. Baum, Der mndliche Faktor und seine Bedeutung fr die

synoptische Frage (TANZ 49; Tbingen: Francke, 2008), Chapter A.

110 History and Development, 37; cf. Lightfoot, The Gospel Message of St. Mark, p. 1.

111 H.B. Swete, The Gospel according to St. Mark (3

rd ed; London: Macmillan, 1909), p. xxixxxx. Possible

references may be found in the Shepherd of Hermas (ca. 156 C.E.) (Herm sim 9.20; cf. Mark 10.2324; Herm mand

2.2; cf. Mark 3.29; Shepherd of Hermas 9.7.6; cf. Mark 13:36) or the Gospel of Peter (5057, likely depends on

Mark 16:18) from before the late second or early third century. The Gospel of the Ebionites may depend on Mark

1:46 and 1:9 respectively. Papyrus Egerton 2 and G. Thom 100 may be dependent on Mark 12:14. See The

Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (ed. by A. Gregory and C. Tuckett; Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2005); Trajectories Through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers (ed. by A. Gregory and

C. Tuckett; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).

112 Justins citation references the name Boagenes, which occurs uniquely in Mark 3.17. cf. Dial 88 for Mark 6.3;

Apol 1.66; Dial. 103. See Wolf-Dietrich Khler, Die Rezeption des Matthus-evangeliums in der Zeit vor Irenus

(WUNT 2.24; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987), pp. 25556; Neirynck, Apocryphal Gospels, p. 123 n. 4; Swete, St

Mark, xxxxxxi for more.

21

Comm. in Joh. 2.7),113

Clement of Alexandria (Paedagogus 1.2 and Strom. 6.14 citing Mark

8.36), and Iraenaeus (Haer. 3.14.3 cites Mark 1.1).

4.2: Possible Reasons for Neglect of Mark in Earliest Christianity. Why Mark is neglected in

earliest Christianity is difficult to say and can only be speculated upon. Typically scholars note,

first, that Matthews Gospel, not Marks, was written first (Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.1416; Irenaeus,

Adv. Haer. 3.1.1, etc.) and that, as Augustine famously put it, Mark was the abbreviator and

follower of Matthew.114 Second, whereas Mark was seen as an interpreter of an apostle (Peter),

Matthew was himself seen as among the original apostles (Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.1416; Irenaeus,

Adv. Haer. 3.1.1, etc.). The historical viability of both these have been quite reconsidered. Yet

that these perceptions were in place in earliest Christianity, particularly at points in the history of

the early church where the rise of differing, even competing accounts of Jesus of Nazareth gave

rise to the necessity of determining which are authoritative and which are not, surely contributed

to the primacy of Matthew and, perhaps by inference, the neglect of Mark. Features more

abundant in Matthew than in Mark may have been more pertinent to respective communities.

This could include Matthews systematically constructed moral and ethical teaching material

(e.g. Sermon on the Mount; Matthew 57).115 Furthermore, Matthews Gospel is replete with

citations from the Jewish scriptures, customs, religious institutions and figures, much more so

than is Mark. As early Christianity navigates its way in the Roman religious milieu, its relation to

its parent religion of Judaism was surely an identity forming matter found more prominently in

Matthew than in Mark. Of course an obvious possibility for neglect of Mark is that it is so

eclipsed by Matthew in terms of its content. With 97.2% of the words in Mark have a parallel in

Matthew, and Matthew containing 65.9% more words than Mark, why a separate account?116

113

Collins, Mark, p. 105. Cf. also Craig A. Evans, The Interpretation of Scripture in the New Testament Apocrypha

and Gnostic Writings, in A History of Biblical Interpretation vol 1: The Ancient Period (ed. Alan J. Hauser and

Duane F. Watson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), pp. 43056.

114 Marcus Matthaei tanquam breviator et pedisequus (Be Cons. Evang., i. 2, 4), Lightfoot, The Gospel Message of

St. Mark, p. 3.

115 See especially Massaux, The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature before Saint

Irenaeus. Indeed, some have contended that Matthews Gospel served as a catechetical manual. See esp. P.S.

Minear, Matthew: the Teachers Gospel (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1984).

116 Mark contains 11,025 words, Matthew 18,293.

22

R.H. Lightfoot observes that Matthew was clearly the most popular and of the three

remaining none has stood to suffer so much from the fact of Matthews popularity as

Mark.117 Indeed, the primacy of Matthew among the Gospels was largely the consensus for

some 1700 years until the discovery of Markan priority in the early nineteenth century.

5. Conclusions: By way of conclusion, even though Mark is more abundantly attested in Greek

reception traditions than in Syriac, it remains in the shadows of its synoptic counterparts. This is

illustrated in the Syriac tradition by the example of the Diatessaron in which Mark is evident but

largely serves to fill in gaps in the narratives of Matthew and Luke. Yet from even the limited

evidence considered here we can still observe, first, that Marks presence in the breadth of Syriac

New Testament traditions indicates its acceptance among those communities alongside the other

three gospels. Second, citation of uniquely Markan material in the Diatessaron indicates its

accessibility in the Syriac-speaking regions of early Christianity. Third, that uniquely Markan

material is interwoven with other material in the Diatessaron suggests its acceptance as a viable

source to be consulted in Tatians harmony. Here we offer only a small cross-section of evidence

pertaining to the reception of Mark in Syriac-speaking Christianity. A more complete treatment

would necessarily entail several features: first, extensive work on translational features of Syriac

Mark in its respective traditions, particularly its handling of Markan Semitisms. Second, careful

work remains to be done on the textual and hermeneutical use of Syriac Mark in Tatians

Diatessaron. Finally, a composite portrait of the reception of Mark in Syriac Christianity would

require careful analysis of explicit uses of Mark within Syriac liturgies, homilies, treatises,

commentaries, etc.

13 December 2013

117

Lightfoot, The Gospel Message of St. Mark, p. 3.

gurtner syriac mark.draft.2

Documents

origins of syriac

syriac literature

syriac versions

syriac traditions

syriac language

segments of syriac

syriac christianity

gospel of mark