(ntts 40) krans patristic and text-critical studies 2011

8/19/2019 (NTTS 40) Krans Patristic and Text-Critical Studies 2011

1/634

Patristic and ext-Critical Studies


2/634

New estament ools,

Studies and DocumentsNew estament ools, Studies, and Documents (NSD) combines two series, Newestament ools and Studies (NS) and Studies and Documents (SD). Te ormerwas ounded by Bruce M. Metzger in 1965 and edited by him until 1993, when Bart

D. Ehrman joined him as co-editor. Te latter series was ounded by Kirsopp andSilva Lake in 1935, edited by them until the death o Kirsopp Lake in 1946, then

briefly by Silva Lake and Carsten Høeg (1955), ollowed by Jacob Geerlings (until1969), by Irving Alan Sparks (until 1993), and finally by Eldon Jay Epp (until 2007).

Te new series will promote the publication o primary sources, reerence tools, andcritical studies that advance the understanding o the New estament and other

early Christian writings and writers into the ourth century. Emphases o the twopredecessor series will be retained, including the textual history and transmission othe New estament and related literature, relevant manuscripts in various languages,

methodologies or research in early Christianity. Te series will also publish abroader range o studies pertinent to early Christianity and its writings.

Editors

Bart D. Ehrman, Ph.D,James A. Gray Distinguished Proessor o Religious Studies

University o North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Eldon J. Epp, Ph.D.,Harkness Proessor o Biblical Literature Emeritus and

Dean o Humanities and Social Sciences Emeritus,

Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio

VOLUME 40

Te titles published in this series are listed at brill.nl/ntts


3/634

Patristic and ext-Critical Studies

Te Collected Essays o William L. Petersen

Edited by

Jan KransJoseph Verheyden

LEIDEN • BOSON2012


4/634

Tis book is printed on acid-ree paper.

Library o Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Petersen, William Lawrence, 1950-2006.

Patristic and text-critical studies : the collected essays o William L. Petersen / edited byJan Krans, Joseph Verheyden. p. cm. -- (New estament tools--Studies and Documents, ISSN 0077-8842 ; . 40) Includes index. ISBN 978-90-04-19289-8 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Bible. N..--Criticism, interpretation,etc. 2. Bible. N.. Gospels. Syriac--Versions--Diatessaron. 3. atian, ca. 120-173. 4. Romanus,Melodus, Saint, 6th cent. I. Krans, Jan. II. Verheyden, Joze III. itle.

BS2361.3.P48 2012 225.4’86--dc23 2011043665

ISSN 0077-8842ISBN 978 90 04 19289 8 (hardback)ISBN 978 90 04 19613 1 (e-book)

Brill has made all reasonable efforts to trace all rights holders to any copyrighted material usedin this work. In cases where these efforts have not been successul the publisher welcomescommunications rom copyrights holders, so that the appropriate acknowledgements can bemade in uture editions, and to settle other permission matters.

Copyright 2012 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, Te Netherlands.Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing,IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.

All rights reserved. No part o this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored ina retrieval system, or transmitted in any orm or by any means, electronic, mechanical,photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission rom the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items or internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NVprovided that the appropriate ees are paid directly to Te Copyright Clearance Center,222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.Fees are subject to change.


5/634

CONENS

Editors’ Preace .................................................................................. ix

Location o Original Publications ................................................... xi

William L. Petersen’s Reviews and Co-edited Books .................... xv

Chapter One Te Parable o the Lost Sheep in the Gospel o

Tomas and the Synoptics ...........................................................

Chapter wo Romanos and the Diatessaron: Readings andMethod ...........................................................................................

Chapter Tree Te Dependence o Romanos the Melodistupon the Syriac Ephrem: Its Importance or the Origin o theKontakion ......................................................................................

Chapter Four Can Ἀρσενοκοῖται be ranslated by“Homosexuals”? ( Cor. .; im. .) ....................................

Chapter Five New Evidence or the Question o the OriginalLanguage o the Diatessaron .......................................................

Chapter Six An Important Unnoticed Diatessaronic Readingin uran Fragment M- .............................................................

Chapter Seven Te ext o the Gospels in Origen’sCommentaries on John and Matthew ........................................

Chapter Eight Some Remarks on the Integrity o Ephrem’sCommentary on the Diatessaron ................................................

Chapter Nine On the Study o “Homosexuality” in PatristicSources ...........................................................................................

Chapter en New Evidence or a Second Century Source oTe Heliand ....................................................................................


6/634

vi

Chapter Eleven extual Evidence o atian’s Dependence uponJustin’s Ἀπομνημονεύματα ...........................................................

Chapter welve Te Dependence o Romanos the Melodist upon the Syriac Ephrem ...............................................................

Chapter Tirteen Te Christology o Aphrahat, the PersianSage: An Excursus on the th Demonstration ..........................

Chapter Fourteen atian’s Diatessaron .......................................

Chapter Fifeen Eusebius and the Paschal Controversy ...........

Chapter Sixteen What ext Can New estament extualCriticism Ultimately Reach? ........................................................

Chapter Seventeen Te Diatessaron o atian ...........................

Chapter Eighteen A New estimonium to a Judaic-ChristianGospel Fragment rom a Hymn o Romanos the Melodist .....

Chapter Nineteen From Justin to Pepys: Te History o theHarmonized Gospel radition ....................................................

Chapter wenty Οὐδὲ ἐγώ σε [κατα]κρίνω: John :, the Prot-evangelium Iacobi, and the History o the Pericope Adulterae

Chapter wenty-One Te Vorlage o Shem-ob’s ‘HebrewMatthew’ ........................................................................................

Chapter wenty-wo Ephrem Syrus and the Venerable Bede:Do East and West Meet? ..............................................................

Chapter wenty-Tree Constructing the Matrix o JudaicChristianity rom exts ................................................................

Chapter wenty-Four Te Genesis o the Gospels ....................

Chapter wenty-Five Te Diatessaron and the FouroldGospel .............................................................................................


7/634

vii

Chapter wenty-Six atian the Assyrian ....................................

Chapter wenty-Seven extual raditions Examined: Whatthe ext o the Apostolic Fathers ells Us about the ext o theNew estament in the Second Century .....................................

Chapter wenty-Eight Canonicity, Ecclesiastical Authority,and atian’s Diatessaron ...............................................................

Chapter wenty-Nine Problems in the Syriac New estamentand How Syrian Exegetes Solved Tem .....................................

Chapter Tirty Patristic Biblical Quotations and Method: FourChanges to Lightoot’s Edition o Second Clement ...................

Chapter Tirty-One Richard Bentley and New estamentextual Criticism: Reverence and Irreverence ..........................

Chapter Tirty-wo Te Syro-Latin ext o the Gospels, orHow the “Western ext” Became a Phantom ............................

Index ...................................................................................................


8/634


9/634

EDIORS’ PREFACE

Tis volume brings together essays by William L. Petersen, two owhich were previously unpublished. We are grateul to Mark Biedrzy-cki, M.D., the executor o William (“Bill”) Petersen’s estate or permis-sion to publish his work.

Bill’s scholarship was impressive and covered a wide range o topics. Be-ginning with his Utrecht dissertation on Romanos the Melodist,

he is o course mainly—and justly—known or his magnum opus onatian’s Diatessaron. Several essays allow us to see how Bill worked hisway towards this monograph, and several others how he continued tobe the great Diatessaron scholar he was.

Bill’s advocacy o Syriac studies demonstrates his concern about “theHellenistic captivity o scholarship”. In his view, New estament andpatristic scholarship ocuses too much on Greek and Latin streams otradition, and should broaden itsel to include the East (and South) aswell. His books and articles show how he lived up to that ideal.

Another important field in Bill’s research is New estament extualCriticism. Here as well, he tried to build bridges between East and West,as well as to argue what he considered as an inconvenient truth: the tex-tual uncertainty o the New estament text in the second century.

O the published articles, several have appeared in works that arenot readily accessible to many o us. Chapter contains the Englishoriginal o an essay previously published in French. Our thanks go toJean Daniel Kaestli, who kindly put the original English version at our

disposal. Some degree o overlap is inevitable in a collection such as thepresent one. However, the editors have decided to leave the individualessays as they were, including the bibliographical lists at the end o twoo them. Obvious errors were o course corrected and a minimum oconsistency in names and reerences was implemented. Te two essaysthat appear here or the first time were not entirely prepared or publi-

Published as Te Diatessaron and Ephrem Syrus as Sources o Romanos the Melodist (CSCO ), Louvain: Peeters, .

atian’s Diatessaron. Its Creation, Dissemination, Signicance, and History in Schol-arship (VCSup ), Leiden: Brill, . Expression used by Bill in a review in VC (), p. .


10/634

x ’

cation by Bill. Te editors checked and elaborated some o the biblio-graphical inormation in the ootnotes. For ease o reerence, the pagenumbers o the original essays are put in the outer margin. Te volumeincludes an extensive index.

Te editors wish to thank jitze Baarda or his help on the Syriac quo-tations; they obviously take ull responsibility or any errors that mayremain.

Our thanks also go to Eldon Epp and Bart Ehrman or urtheringthis edition and to Mattie Kuiper and Loes Schouten at KoninklijkeBrill or making it all possible.

For a fine overview o Bill’s scholarly lie and career, we reer to the obituary byEldon Epp, “William L. Petersen (-)”, on the SBL website (http://www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?articleId=).


11/634

LOCAION OF ORIGINAL PUBLICAIONS

. Te Parable o the Lost Sheep in the Gospel o Tomas and theSynoptics

Novum estamentum () -.

. Romanos and the Diatessaron: Readings and MethodNew estament Studies () - [A paper at the th GeneralMeeting o the Studiorum Novi estamenti Societas, Louvain, Bel-gium, August, ].

. Te Dependence o Romanos the Melodist upon the Syriac Ephrem:Its Importance or the Origin o the Kontakion

Vigiliae Christianae () - [A paper at the th InternationalConerence on Patristic Studies, Oxord, September, ].

. Can Ἀρσενοκοῖται be ranslated by “Homosexuals”? (I Cor. .; Iim. .)

Vigiliae Christianae () -.

. New Evidence or the Question o the Original Language o theDiatessaronStudien zum ext und zur Ethik des Neuen estaments: Festschrif zum80. Geburtstag von Heinrich Greeven (ed. Wolgang Schrage; BZNW; Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, ) - [A paper at theAnnual Meeting o the Society o Biblical Literature, Chicago, Decem-ber, ].

. An Important Unnoticed Diatessaronic Reading in uran Frag-ment M-

ext and estimony: Essays on New estament and Apocryphal Litera-ture in Honour o A. F. J. Klijn (ed. . Baarda, A. Hilhorst, G. P. Lut-tikhuizen, and A. S. van der Woude; Kampen: J. H. Kok, ) -.

. Te ext o the Gospels in Origen’s Commentaries on John andMatthew

Origen o Alexandria: His World and His Legacy (ed. Charles Kan-nengiesser and William L. Petersen; Christianity and Judaism in An-tiquity, ; Notre Dame, : University o Notre Dame Press, ) -.


12/634

xii

. Some Remarks on the Integrity o Ephrem’s Commentary on theDiatessaron

Studia Patristica XX () - [A paper at the th InternationalConerence on Patristic Studies, Oxord, August, ].

. On the Study o “Homosexuality” in Patristic SourcesStudia Patristica XX () - [A paper at the th InternationalConerence on Patristic Studies, Oxord, August, ].

. New Evidence or a Second Century Source o Te Heliand Medieval German Literature: Proceedings rom the 23rd InternationalCongress on Medieval Studies (ed. Albrecht Classen; Göppinger Arbei-ten zur Germanistik, ; Göppingen: Kümmerle, ) - [A pa-

per at the rd International Congress on Medieval Studies, WesternMichigan University, Kalamazoo, , May, ].

. extual Evidence o atian’s Dependence upon Justin’s Ἀπομνημο-νεύματα

New estament Studies () - [A paper at the Annual Meet-ing o the Society o Biblical Literature, Boston, December, ].

. Te Dependence o Romanos the Melodist upon the Syriac EphremStudia Patristica XVIII: () -.

. Te Christology o Aphrahat, the Persian Sage: An Excursus on theth Demonstration

Vigiliae Christianae () - [A paper at the th InternationalConerence on Patristic Studies, Oxord, August, ].

. atian’s Diatessaron Ancient Christian Gospels: Teir History and Development by HelmutKoester [with a chapter by W. L. Petersen] (Philadelphia: rinity PressInternational; London: SCM Press, ) -.

. Eusebius and the Paschal Controversy Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism (ed. Harold W. Attridge and GoheiHata; StPB ; Leiden: Brill; Detroit, : Wayne State University Press,) -.

. What ext Can New estament extual Criticism UltimatelyReach?

New estament extual Criticism, Exegesis and Early Church History: ADiscussion o Methods (ed. Barbara Aland and Joël Delobel; Kampen:Kok Pharos, ) - [A paper at the International Meeting o theSociety o Biblical Literature, University o Münster, July, ].


13/634

xiii

. Te Diatessaron o atianTe ext o the New estament: Essays on the Status Quaestionis (ed.Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes; SD ; Grand Rapids, :

Eerdmans, ) -.

. A New estimonium to a Judaic-Christian Gospel Fragment roma Hymn o Romanos the Melodist


. From Justin to Pepys: Te History o the Harmonized Gospelradition

Studia Patristica XXX () - [A paper at the th InternationalConerence on Patristic Studies, Oxord, August, ].

. Οὐδὲ ἐγώ σε [κατα]κρίνω: John :, the Protevangelium Iacobi, andthe History o the Pericope adulterae

Sayings o Jesus: Canonical and Non-Canonical: Essays in Honour ojitze Baarda (ed. William L. Petersen, Johan S. Vos, Henk J. de Jonge;NovSup ; Leiden: Brill, ) -.

. Te Vorlage o Shem-ob’s ‘Hebrew Matthew’New estament Studies () -.

. Ephrem Syrus and the Venerable Bede: Do East and West Meet?Studia Patristica () - [A paper at the th InternationalConerence on Patristic Studies, Oxord, August, ]

. Constructing the Matrix o Judaic Christianity rom extsLe judéo-christianisme dans tous ses états: Actes du colloque de Jéru-salem 6-10 juillet 1998 (ed. S. Mimouni; LD; Paris: Cer, ) -[A paper at the Colloque International, Le Judéo-christianisme ancien:Histoire, littérature, archéologique, École biblique et archéologiquerançaise, Jerusalem, Israel, July, ].

. Te Genesis o the GospelsNew estament extual Criticism and Exegesis: Festschrif J. Delobel (ed.A. Denaux; BEL ; Leuven: Peeters, ) -.

. Te Diatessaron and the Fourold GospelTe Earliest Gospels: Te Origins and ransmission o the Earliest Chris-tian Gospels – Te Contribution o the Chester Beatty Gospel Codex P45 (ed. Charles Horton; JSNSup ; London/New York: & Clark,) - [Keynote address at the conerence on “Te Word and ItsBeginning,” Chester Beatty Library, Dublin, December, ].


14/634

xiv

. atian the Assyrian A Companion to Second-Century Christian “Heretics” (ed. A. Marjanenand P. Luomanen; VCSup ; Leiden: Brill, ) -.

. extual raditions Examined: What the ext o the ApostolicFathers ells Us about the ext o the New estament in the SecondCentury

Te Reception o the New estament in the Apostolic Fathers (ed. An-drew F. Gregory and Christopher M. uckett; vols.; Oxord: OxordUniversity Press, ) - [Main paper at the Colloquium on TeNew estament and the Apostolic Fathers, Lincoln College, OxordUniversity, April, ].

. Canonicity, Ecclesiastical Authority, and atian’s DiatessaronEnglish original o ‘Canonicité, autorité ecclésiastique et Diatessaron de atien’, in Le canon du Nouveau estament : Regards nouveaux surl’historie de sa ormation (ed. Frédéric Amsler; Le monde de la Bible,; Genève: Labor et Fides, ) - (ranslation by Jean DanielKaestli) [Keynote address at the Colloquium on the History o AncientChristianity, Teological Faculties o the Swiss Romande, Genève/Bex,Switzerland, March, ].

. Problems in the Syriac New estament and How Syrian Exegetes

Solved TemTe Peshitta: Its Use in Literature and Liturgy: Papers Read at the TirdPeshitta Symposium (ed. B. ter Haar Romeny; Monographs o thePeshitta Institute Leiden, ; Leiden: Brill, ) - [Keynote ad-dress at the Tird Peshitta Symposium, University o Leiden, August,].

. Patristic Biblical Quotations and Method: Four Changes to Light-oot’s Edition o Second Clement


. Richard Bentley and New estament extual Criticism: Reverenceand Irreverence

Unpublished [A paper at the Annual Meeting o the American Societyor Eighteenth-Century Studies, New Orleans, LA, March, ].

. Te Syro-Latin ext o the Gospels, or How the “Western ext”Became a Phantom

Unpublished [A paper at the Annual Meeting o the Society o BiblicalLiterature, San Francisco, November, ].


15/634

WILLIAM L. PEERSEN’S REVIEWS AND COEDIED BOOKS

. Reviews

Review o Barbara Aland, Das Neue estament in syrischer Überlieerung: I. Die grossenKatholischen Briee, JBL (): -.

Review o Te New estament in Greek: Te Gospel According to St Luke (IGNP), JBL (): -.

Review o George Howard, Te Gospel o Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew ext ,

JBL (): -.Review o Joze Verheyden, De vlucht van de christenen naar Pella: Onderzoek van het

getuigenis van Eusebius en Epiphanius, SecCent (): -.Review o Barbara Aland and Andreas Juckel, eds., Das Neue estament in syrischer Über-

lieerung, II. Die Paulinischen Briee. eil 1: Römer- und 1. Korintherbrie , JBL ():-.

Review o Michael Fieger, Das Tomasevangelium: Einleitung, Kommentar und Syste-matik, Bib (): -.

Review o A.F.J. Klijn, Jewish-Christian Gospel radition, JBL (): -.Review o Bart D. Ehrman, Te Orthodox Corruption o Scripture: the Effect o Early

Christological Controversies on the ext o the New estament , JR (): -.Review o Philip Wesley Comort, Te Quest or the Original ext o the New estament ,

JBL (): -.Review o George Anton Kiraz, ed., A Computer-Generated Concordance to the Syriac

New estament According to the British and Foreign Bible Society’s Edition; Based onthe SEDRA Database, JBL (): -.

Review o Jack . Sanders, Schismatics, Sectarians, Dissidents, Deviants: the rst 100 years o Jewish-Christian relations, JR (): -.

Review o George Anton Kiraz, Lexical ools to the Syriac New estament , JBL (): -.

Review o jitze Baarda, Essays on the Diatessaron, C () (http://purl.org/C/v/

Baardarev.html).Review o jitze Baarda, Essays on the Diatessaron, VC (): -.Review o C. McCarthy, Saint Ephrem’s Commentary on atian’s Diatessaron: an Eng-

lish translation o Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709 with introduction and notes , VC (): -.

Review o Barbara Aland and Andreas Juckel, eds., Das Neue estament in syrischerÜberlieerung, II. Die Paulinischen Briee, eil 2: 2. Korintherbrie, Galaterbrie, Ephe-serbrie und Kolosserbrie , JBL (): -.

“Some Observations on a Recent Edition o and Introduction to Shem-ob’s ‘HebrewMatthew’ ” (review o George Howard, Hebrew Gospel o Matthew), C ()(http://purl.org/C/vol/Petersena.html).

“Some Remarks on the First Volume (Te Epistle o James) o the Novum estamentum Grae-cum Editio Critica Maior”, C () (http://purl.org/C/vol/Petersen.html).


16/634

xvi -

Review o George Anton Kiraz, Comparative Edition o the Syriac Gospels: Aligning theSinaiticus, Curetonianus, Peshîttâ and Harklean Versions, JBL (): -.

Review o Hans-Gebhard Bethge, Der Brie des Petrus an Philippus. Ein Neutestament-

liches Apokryphon aus dem Fund von Nag Hammadi (NHC VIII,), Nov ():-.Review o Majella Franzmann, Jesus in the Nag Hammadi Writings, Nov ():

-.Review o Hermann Jose Frede and Herbert Stanjek, eds., Sedulii Scotti Collectane-

um in Apostolum: II, In Epistolas ad Corinthios usque ad Hebraeos , JBL ():-.

Review o A. Stewart-Sykes, Te Lamb’s High Feast: Melito, Peri Pascha and the Quarto-deciman Paschal Liturgy at Sardis, VC (): -.

Review o Robert F. Shedinger, atian and the Jewish Scriptures: A extual and Philo-logical Analysis o the Old estament Citations in atian’s Diatessaron, JBL ():

-.Review o Robert F. Shedinger, atian and the Jewish Scriptures: A extual and Philolog-ical Analysis o the Old estament Citations in atian’s Diatessaron, Hugoye ()(http://syrcom.cua.edu/hugoye/VolNo/HVNPRPetersen.html).

Review o Ulrich B. Schmid, Unum ex quattuor: Eine Geschichte der lateinischen atian-überlieerung , JS (): -.

. Co-edited Books

Charles Kannengiesser and William L. Petersen, eds., Origen o Alexandria: His World

and His Legacy (Papers rom the Origen Colloquy held at the University o NotreDame, Indiana on April -, ) (Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity ), NotreDame, Ind.: University o Notre Dame Press, .

Barbara Aland and William L. Petersen, eds., Gospel raditions in the Second Century:Origins, Recensions, ext, and ransmission (Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity), Notre Dame, Ind.: University o Notre Dame Press, .

William L. Petersen, Johan S. Vos and Henk Jan de Jonge, eds., Sayings o Jesus, Canoni-cal and Non-Canonical: Essays in Honour o jitze Baarda (NovSup ), Leiden:Brill, .


17/634

CHAPER ONE

HE PARABLE OF HE LOS SHEEP IN HEGOSPEL OF HOMAS AND HE SYNOPICS

A recent article by F. Schnider has reinorced the currently acceptedopinion concerning the Parable o the Lost Sheep (Mt. xviii -; Lk.xv -), namely, () that the Gospel o Tomas (logion ) has turnedthe parable into an esoteric gnostic saying; () that Tomas’s version

is dependent upon the synoptic recensions; and () that Luke has pre-served the most primitive version o the parable.Tis article will argue that the opposite is the case. () Tomas’s lo-

gion is not intrinsically gnostic. Rather, () it preserves a tradition inde-pendent o the synoptics. Indeed, () it has numerous points in its avoras being more primitive than the synoptic versions.

I

Gärtner has stated that “I the Gospel o ruth is reckoned as com-ing rom Valentinian circles, the same ought to apply to the Gospel oTomas since the resemblance between the two is so great”. Tis al-leged similarity between the Gospel o ruth and the Gospel o Tomashas led Perrin to assert that

Te Tomas version (o the Parable o the Lost Sheep) does not help us very much. We know rom the Fathers, e.g. Irenaeus Adv. Haer. II .,that this parable was much used by Gnostics, and both in Tomas andthe | Gospel o ruth ... it has become so much a vehicle or expressing

gnostic teaching that the versions do not help us to reconstruct the teach-ing o Jesus.

F. Schnider, “Das Gleichnis vom verlorenen Scha und seine Redaktoren,” Kairos n.. xix (), pp. -. Another even more recent article is that by J. D. M. Derrett,“Fresh Light on the Lost Sheep and the Lost Coin,” NS, xxvi (), pp. -, whichappeared afer this article was finished. Derrett agrees with many o the conclusions Ihave reached regarding the original orm o the parable, but, incredibly, he excludesTomas rom his analysis, dismissing it as “known to be a distortion o the parable inthe interest o gnostic exegesis” (p. )! Yet it is Tomas’s version which approximates

most closely the textual orm o the parable he himsel envisions! B. Gärtner, Te Teology o the Gospel o Tomas (London, ), p. . N. Perrin, Rediscovering the eaching o Jesus (New York, ), pp. . But i one


18/634

Te reader is urged to compare or himsel the passage in the Gospelo ruth with its counterpart in the Gospel o Tomas. (Te synoptic

versions are also presented.)

He (the beloved Son) is the shepherd who lef behind the ninety-ninesheep which were not lost. He went searching or the one which was lost.He rejoiced when he ound it, or is a number that is in the lef handwhich holds it. But when the one is ound, the entire number passes tothe right (hand).

—Gospel o ruth, .-.

Jesus said: Te Kingdom is like a shepherd who has a hundred sheep. Oneo them went astray, which was the largest. He lef behind the ninety-nine, he sought or the one until he ound it. Having tired himsel out, he

said to the sheep: I love thee more than the ninety-nine.—Gospel o Tomas, logion

“See that you do not despise one o these little ones; or I tell you that inheaven their angels always behold the ace o my Father who is in heaven.[For the Son o man came to save the lost.] What do you think? I a manhas a hundred sheep, and one o them has gone astray, does he not leavethe ninety-nine on the hills and go in search o the one that went astray?And i he finds it, truly, I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over theninety-nine that never went astray. So it is not the will o my Father whois in heaven that one o these little ones should perish.”

—Mt. xviii -, RSV, with v. in brackets

Now the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to hear him.And the Pharisees and the scribes murmured, saying, “Tis man receivessinners and eats with them.”

So he told them this parable: “What man o you, having a hundredsheep, i he has lost one o them, does not leave the ninety-nine in thewilderness, and go afer the one which is lost, until he finds it? Andwhen he has ound it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And whenhe comes home, he calls together his riends and his neighbours, say-

ing to them, ‘Rejoice with me, or I have ound my sheep which waslost.’ Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sin-ner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need norepentance.”

—Luke xv -, RSV

I one cannot detect a palpable difference between the Gospel o ruth(with its elaborate numerology, identification o the shepherd with Je-sus) and Tomas (where these elements are absent), then there is littlemore to be said.

reads Irenaeus critically , it is obvious that he knows the Gospel o ruth version, not Tomas’s version!


19/634

Although the Gospel o Tomas may have undergone a gnostic redac-tion, it does not ollow that all its logia must be gnostic. And althoughthis logion may have received a gnostic interpretation in the hands ognostics, it does not ollow that this logion must have been altered textu-ally by a gnostic redactor. It is necessary to distinguish careully betweena gnostic text and a gnostic interpretation o a text which is not intrinsi-cally gnostic. Numerous passages in the canon (in Paul, or example)received gnostic interpretations without being altered textually.

Tis logion may have had a non-gnostic interpretation as well as agnostic interpretation. But to state that the logion is gnostic is too pre-cipitate. Such a statement would be possible only afer a careul analysiso this logion by the accepted principles o higher criticism. And it is

just such an analysis which has been neglected.

When rigorously examined or evidence, when stripped o the charge o“gnosticism by association,” logion stands convicted o gnosticismby one word. Te sheep which strays is the “largest.” Tis has been citedas a gnostic expansion by Beyschlag, Ceraux, Grant and Freedman, Ménard and Schrage. Te opinion o H. Montefiore, who has been armore generous to Tomas than most critics, is representative: “(largest)

is presumably an allegorical detail, and the reader is intended to under-stand that the gnostic believer is the most important class o Christian”.

Although Jeremias has stopped short o calling this an “allegori-cal detail,” he too takes a critical view, stating that Tomas’s reading“largest”

shows ... a complete misunderstanding o the parable. For the expressionused by Matthew (v. ), “one o the least”, and the setting o the parable| in Luke, with v. , tend to show that it is more likely that the lost sheepwas thought o as a specially weak one.

K. Beyschlag, Simon Magus und die christliche Gnosis, WUN (übingen, ),p. .

L. Ceraux, “Les paraboles du royaume dans l’‘Évangile de Tomas’,” Le Muséon lxx (), p. .

R. M. Grant and D. N. Freedman, Te Secret Sayings o Jesus according to the Gos- pel o Tomas (London, ), p. .

J.-É. Ménard, L’Évangile selon Tomas, NHS (Leiden, ), p. . W. Schrage, Das Verhältnis des Tomas-Evangeliums zur synoptischen radition

und zu den koptischen Evangelienübersetzungen, BZNW (Berlin, ), pp. , . H. Montefiore, “A Comparison o the Parables o Te Gospel According to Tom-

as and the Synoptic Gospels,” NS vii (/), p. . J. Jeremias, Te Parables o Jesus, revised edition, translated rom the sixth Ger-man edition (London, ), p. .


20/634

I would suggest that this noted scholar has not heard what Tomas’sparable is saying, perhaps because o his conviction that Luke’s versionis original and is not allegorical. How ironic, then, that it is Jeremias’sassertion that the lost sheep cannot be the “largest,” but must be a “spe-cially weak one,” which demonstrates ipso acto how allegorical Luke’sredaction is! Te setting in Luke leads one to conclude that the manseeking is Jesus; the lost sheep represents the “sinners and tax collec-tors” with whom Jesus is eating. Hence, in Luke’s redaction the sheepcannot be “large” or strong, or the sinners are “weak,” as Jeremias sug-gests. Matthew’s setting also results in allegorized roles, where the “littleones” (vv. and ) certainly cannot be the “largest” o sheep.

Jeremias has made a critical error in arriving at his judgement. Hehas allowed a verse taken rom the Matthean “ramework” (v. ),which he himsel admits to be a secondary invention, and a Lucangloss (v. ) not only to determine a priori what kind o sheep was lost,but also to judge Tomas’s recension, even though Tomas tells the par-able without an allegory-inspiring ramework or concluding “point.”

It should be pointed out that the Gospel o Tomas belongs to a Se-mitic rather than a Hellenistic orm o Christianity. Its place | o au-

thorship is usually ascribed to Edessa, the capital o Syrian Christianitywhich, in turn, traced its lineage back to Jewish-Christian Jerusalem.

Ibid., pp. , . Ibid., p. . Te ull argument or regarding the carrying o the sheep on the shepherd’s shoul-

ders as a Lucan addition is presented below in Section V. Te thesis that at least part o the Gospel o Tomas has a Jewish-Christian charac-

ter was first set orth by H.-Ch. Puech in “Une collection de Paroles de Jésus récemmentretrouvée: L’Évangile selon Tomas,” Comptes Rendus de I’Académie des Inscriptions etBelles-Lettres, , pp. -. See also his comments in “Gnostic Gospels and Related

Documents” in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, New estament Apocrypha (London/Philadel-phia, ), Vol. I, esp. pp. , , and . G. Quispel seconded this thesis in “TeGospel o Tomas and the New estament,” Vigiliae Christianae, xi (), pp. -. W.C. van Unnik concurred in Newly Discovered Gnostic Writings, SB (London, ),pp. . O. Cullmann, “Das Tomasevangelium und die Frage nach dem Alter der in ihmenthaltenen radition,” Teologische Literaturzeitung , lxxxv (), cols. -, reachedthe same conclusion (see esp. cols. -). Stating that “Te work then is substantial-ly Jewish Christian,” J. Daniélou, Te Teology o Jewish Christianity (London, ),lists eatures o Tomas which are “typical o Jewish Christianity” (p. ). H. Koester,“ΓΝΩΜΑΙ ΔΙΑΦΟΡΟΙ: Te Origin and Nature o Diversification in the History o EarlyChristianity,” Harvard Teological Review, lviii (), pp. -, urther refined the the-

sis by describing a “Tomas community” within the Jewish-Christian milieu. All o the scholars listed above in note name Edessa (or its surroundings) asTomas’s place o authorship. Te original sources linking Jerusalem and Edessa are


21/634

Tese communities saw themselves as the consummation o the Jewish aith. Tey were, by birth or conversion, Jews, who regarded Jesus as aprophet or the messiah. Teir religious heritage was expressed in andtheir religious symbolism was derived rom their sacred books, the O.Tereore it is both natural and necessary to seek an interpretation otheir writings within the rame o reerence they used—namely, the O. While this may be said generally o the synoptic versions o the parable,it is especially true or Tomas’s version—or Tomas sprang rom amore Jewish-Christian milieu than, or instance, the Gospel o Luke.

In response to the “gnostic” thesis, I would begin with the source crit-ical observation that the parable, both in the synoptics and in Tomas,is based on Ezekiel xxxiv . In v. , this chapter | describes how Godhimsel will assume the rôle o the shepherd, or the shepherds o thepeople o Israel have ailed him.

Te image o the “lost sheep” in the O is almost exclusively identifiedwith Israel: πρόβατον πλανώμενον Ἰσραήλ (Jer. xxvii , where πρόβατονis in the singular, as in Tomas); πάντες ὡς πρόβατα ἐπλανήϑημεν (Is. liii). Israel could scarcely be described as anything less than God’s special,beloved sheep, or only with this nation does he have a covenant. By com-parison, other nations are o secondary importance.

When one understands that the sheep is Israel, then Tomas’s quali-ying adjective “largest” becomes comprehensible. A gloss it may be,

Eusebius, Hist. eccl., I, , and Te Doctrine o Addai, the Apostle, ed. G. Phillips (Lon-don, ). Tis latter source states: “... Judas Tomas sent to Abgar, Addai the Apostle(the Taddaeus o Eusebius’ account), who was one o the seventy-two Apostles. Andwhen Addai came to the city o Edessa, he dwelt at the house o obias, son o obiasthe Jew, who was o Palestine,” (pp. .). F. C. Burkitt, Early Eastern Christianity (Lon-don, ), presents a magisterial account o the evidence, drawing special attentionto the Semitic character o Edessene Christianity: “Edessa was the only centre o earlyChristian lie where the language o the Christian community was other than Greek

... Te Church o Antioch in Syria ... was ... wholly Greek.” (p. ). In his Celibacy, ARequirement or Admission to Baptism in the Early Syrian Church (Stockholm, ), A.Vööbus affirms that Edessene Christianity was Jewish-Christian in nature (pp. -).

For example, logion displays a knowledge o the Hebrew, rather than the LXX,text o Is. v . See urther, G. Quispel, “Das Tomasevangelium und das Alte esta-ment,” Neotestamentica et Patristica, ed. W. C. van Unnik, Supp. Nov. est. (Leiden,), pp. -.

Te relationship has been noted by, among others, W. Dittmar, Vetus estamen-tum in Novo (Göttingen, ), pp. .; the twenty-fifh edition o Nestle; P. Benoit andM.-É. Boismard, Synopse des quatre évangiles en rançais (Paris, -), Vol. II, p. .

In addition to the two examples cited, the “lost sheep” image is used in Jer. xxiii

(ἀπολλύοντες τὰ πρόβατα) and Jer. xxvii (πρόβατα ἀπολωλότα) o Israel. In Ps.cxviii (ἐπλανήϑην ὡς πρόβατον ἀπολωλός) it denotes the psalmist; and in Is. xiii (πρόβατον πλανώμενον) it represents the whole o mankind in the Babylonian empire.


22/634

but not a gnostic gloss, or in Gen. xii the Lord tells Abram that he willbe made “a great (: μέγας) nation” through Isaac.

A reader o Tomas, acquainted with all the O precedents, wouldidentiy the lost sheep with Israel. Tis identification has been mademore explicit by borrowing an adjective rom the covenant narrativeand applying it to the symbol representing Israel in the parable, i.e. thelost sheep. Te superlative distinguishes between Israel (which is “lovedmore” and is the “largest” in importance to God) and the other nations.

Afer this conclusion was reached, it was tested against the associationsmade by rabbinic sources. Tese sources not only verified the conclu-sion, but added new weight to the argument.

In the rabbinic documents a series o interlocking concepts is devel-oped. Te idea o a census o Israel is the central theme. Te census is tobe taken because o Israel’s supreme worth to God:

Te Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, “I have never loved any cre-ated being more than you ...”

—Num. R. i

In Tomas the sheep—which we suggested represents Israel, as isshown in numerous O equations o the two—is told that it is “loved

more” than the other sheep.In the rabbinic documents, part o Israel’s uniqueness is her size,

here reckoned numerically:

It is Israel alone that is to be innumerable and immeasurable ...—Num. R. ii

... in the distant uture Israel will be ruitul and multiply until they be-come innumerable ... at first they could be numbered, but aferwards theymultiplied indefinitely ...

—Num. R. ii

Tis description o Israel, using superlatives, is elaborated by reerence tothe covenant promises o Israel numbering as the stars o heaven, the sando the seashore (Gen. xxii ) and the dust o the earth (Gen. xxviii ).

Te traditions preserved in these documents are difficult to date reliably. O ourcitations, only one, attributed to R. Johanan ben Zakkai (st cent. ), offers any pos-sibility o dating. Tereore, we would ask that the reader suspend judgement until hehas seen the breadth o parallels offered by the rabbinic sources. We would also remind

the reader that these rabbinic parallels are adduced solely to help veriy the conclusionalready reached on the basis o dated O canonical parallels. Num. R. ii, , .


23/634

A hint o xenophobia is seen already in the act that Israel is “lovedmore” than any other “created being.” Tis xenophobia becomes explicitwhen it is explained why only Israel is to be numbered. It is because othernations are “o no value whatever” to God. Tey “belong to Gehenna”:

I stated not the number o the other nations o the world. Why? Becausethey are not o any value whatever in My sight ... You, however, are Mychildren ... Tereore, I number you at requent intervals.

—Num. R. iv

All these hosts that you see are not mine. Tey belong to Gehenna ... Butthese children o Israel whose sum I keep telling you to take, they areMine own treasure ...

—Pesik .ta Rabbati .

Tis xenophobia and the next point are most significant or ourinvestigation.

A census o Israel is sometimes cast in the orm o a shepherd count-ing his sheep:

[In explanation o God’s commanding Moses to count Israel ...] R. Mena-hema cited R. Bebai’s parable o the king who had a flock o sheep whichwolves came to rend. Tereupon the king said to the shepherd: Numbermy flock to find out how many are gone. Even so the Holy One said to

Moses: Count Israel to find out how many are gone.—Pesik .ta de-Rabˉ Kahana .

For as the owner o a flock o sheep is anxious to know how many he pos-sesses, when anything untoward happens, when a wol has been in theirmidst ... Tus Moses had the people numbered to see what loss there wasafer their punishment or making the golden cal.

—anchumah Ki issa

And such census taking has an eschatological tone in that the finalnumbering will be in the uture. Significantly, the census is again lik-ened to counting sheep:

Israel were numbered on ten occasions ... And once in the days o Ezra(the ninth) ... And once again in the time-to-come: “Te flocks shall passagain under the hands o him that counteth them, saith the Lord” (Jer.xxxiii ).

—Pesik .ta Rabbati .

Let us recapitulate this sphere o ideas, all grown up around the cen-tral theme o a census. () Israel is “loved more” than any other nation.

() Israel alone is described in superlatives. () Other nations are notGod’s, and are fit only or Gehenna. () Israel is likened to sheep being


24/634

counted in a census. () Te final numbering o Israel is represented asan eschatological counting o sheep in the uture.

Te congruity between this typology o Israel and that presented inTomas’s parable should be apparent. In Tomas, () the sheep whichstrays is “loved more” than the others. () Tis sheep is described in thesuperlative; it is the “largest.” () In comparison, the other sheep areless important. () Since this is our thesis, first arrived at on the basiso the canonical O images, this point o comparison is the variable inthe experiment. We submit that Tomas employs a sheep to representIsrael. () As a parable o the “kingdom,” Tomas gives it an eschato-logical tenor.

Our purpose in presenting the rabbinic parallels was to test ourthesis that the sheep in homas’s parable is Israel. In surveying therabbinic texts, we discover not only that this image was amiliar tothe rabbis (point , above), but that our eatures which homas re-lates to the sheep in his parable are also to be ound in the rabbinicsources!

Given these points o reerence or interpretation, it becomes difficult tomaintain that Tomas’s parable must be gnostic—and only gnostic—in

both text and interpretation. Although it may have received a gnostic in-terpretation in gnostic circles, the text o the parable lacks the chie hall-marks o gnosticism, namely an extreme dualism, and a unity betweenGod and the true gnostic. When one acknowledges that Tomas’s textreadily allows a non-gnostic interpretation, then it becomes clear thatTomas has not added a “gnostic,” allegorizing touch. On the contrary,his version is richer in O imagery than are the synoptic versions.

Te Parable o the Lost Sheep in the Gospel o Tomas is revelatoryand programmatic. Images rich in O symbolism describe the relation-

ship o God to Israel, and tell what God intends: the rescue o His cho-sen people, who are loved above all others.

Once this key has been inserted into the lock, we may begin to un-derstand some o the variations in the synoptic redactions. In Q theparable must have stood without a context, or in a context which wasunacceptable to the evangelists. Te natural result o this would havebeen or each evangelist to create his own context or the parable, aseach has done.

Following the same line o reasoning, I would suggest that the ver-sion in Q had an application—a “point”—similar to Tomas’s exclu-


25/634

sivist, nationalistic version. Such a parable hardly would have beenwelcome in the Gentile (or mixed Jewish-Gentile) communities o thesynoptics. Te natural result o this would have been or each evangelistto attempt to remove this embarrassing “point” by creating a new ap-plication or the parable, as each has done.

It is well known that Luke omits or de-emphasizes those statementswhich indicate that Jesus’ ministry was only to Israel. Luke presents theministry as a universal one. Matthew represents a way-station on theroad to the Lucan “universalist” vision, or Matthew still relates someinstances where Jesus explicitly states that his mission is to Israel alone.Te tendency to “universalize” Jesus’ ministry may be responsible orthe contradictory “points” in the synoptic versions o the parable. Seek-ing interpretations acceptable to a Hellenized audience, the synopticsdiscarded the old, “mistaken” exegesis, and sought out the “latent” mes-sage in Jesus’ words.

However, as we pointed out near the beginning o this section, Tom-as arose rom and circulated within Jewish-Christian circles. Its read-ers—Jews and proselytes who considered Jesus to be a prophet or themessiah—would have had no objection to an elitist, xenophobic parable,depicting Israel as the apple o God’s eye. Because o this, it appears that

Tomas’s parable avoided the reinterpretation—all too apparent in themutually contradictory | settings and “points”—which beell the synoptic versions, a consequence o their circulation in Hellenized communities.

Tat the image o the “lost sheep” in the mouth o Jesus is emphati-cally Jewish-Christian may be verified by reerence to the synoptics.Te saying “I am sent/Go to the lost sheep o the house o Israel” occursthree times in the synoptics. From the requency and popularity o theimage, we can be certain that it made a proound impression on theearly church. Tat the saying is xenophobic may be demonstrated by

studying the context o the saying.Mt. x : Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town o the Sa-maritans, but go rather to the lost sheep (ἀπολωλότα) o the house oIsrael. [Tis saying is missing in Luke’s gospel.]

Mt. xv , : And behold a Canaanite woman rom that region cameout and cried, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son o David; my daughter

Might the act that Matthew inserts the parable afer the dispute over who will

be “greatest” in the kingdom o heaven (Mt. xviii -) be an indication o Stichwort-verbindung with the “largest/greatest” (μέγιστον) sheep ound in Q i, as we suggested,Q’s parable contained this same image?


26/634

is severely possessed by a demon.” ... He answered, “I was sent only to thelost sheep (ἀπολωλότα) o the house o Israel.” [Luke omits the crucialsentence.]

Mt. xviii : (For the Son o man came to save the lost [ἀπολωλός]) is afloating logion omitted in some MSS; it comes rom Lk. xix -:

And Jesus said to him, “oday salvation has come to this house, sincehe (Zacchaeus) also is a son o Abraham. For the Son o man came to seekand to save the lost (ἀπολωλός).”

When it comes to speaking o “lost sheep,” Jesus shows himsel to bean ethnic elitist. In each case a xenophobic or exclusivist situation orsaying is linked with the saying about the lost sheep. I submit that the

parable in the Gospel o Tomas makes the same association, stressingthe supreme importance o the one lost sheep—Israel.I Q’s parable was similar to Tomas’s version in having the same

“point,” then one may understand why the synoptics had to alter the“point” o Q’s parable, just as they would have had to supply a rame-work or Q’s parable, i it was similar to Tomas’s “rameless” one.

Another contradiction between the synoptics, which suggests dis-satisaction with Q’s parable, is the assignment o the role o the shep-herd. Matthew presumes the existence o a church by giving the role to

the elders: by one interpretation, the elders are to seek out the erringbrother; by another, they are not to lead new converts, “babes in theaith,” astray. Luke makes the parable messianic by giving the rôle toJesus: even as the man seeks | his lost sheep, so Jesus seeks his “lostsheep”—the sinners and tax collectors with whom he is eating. (TeGospel o ruth has made this messianism even more explicit by stating“He is the shepherd ...”)

What commands our attention is that Tomas’s version has no tingeo the ecclesiology or messianism evident in the synoptic versions. In

Tomas the rôle o the shepherd appears to belong to God, just as itdoes in Ez. xxxiv. Tomas’s parable ocuses on God’s love or and rescueo his beloved people, Israel, in an eschatological act.

Te contradictory role assignations in the synoptics make one won-der once again i Q’s version—like Tomas’s—might not have assignedthe role o shepherd to God, an assignation which the synoptics saw fitto alter or parenetic purposes (so Mt.) or christological purposes (soLk. and the Gospel o ruth).

Whether one accepts or rejects the suggestion that the typology and“point” o Tomas’s and Q’s parables were similar (namely, that both


27/634

envisaged Israel as the sheep, were eschatological and xenophobic,and lacked the messianism and ecclesiology evident in the synoptic

versions), the act remains that Tomas’s parable is not a gnostic cor-ruption o the synoptic versions. Tomas’s parable is no more gnos-tic than the Parable o the Mustard Seed (which becomes the “great-est” o shrubs) or the Parable o the Pearl (which is a pearl o “great”

value), parables which are canonical and not, I presume, taken asgnostic by Beyschlag, Ceraux, et al. Rather, Tomas presents a par-able rich in O associations which, i they stood in Q, have been lostin the synoptics.

“Largest” is not a gnostic, allegorizing touch, but an adjective used toidentiy Israel, which time and again is described as a lost sheep in Oimagery. Further, the interpretation which I have suggested or Tom-as’s parable concurs with the three other synoptic instances o the “lostsheep” image, each o which is connected with an expressed prejudiceagainst non-Jews.

II

Tomas’s redaction is that o a “parable o the Kingdom,” with which we

are amiliar rom the synoptics. Matthew, Mark and Luke recount re-spectively , and parables. O Matthew’s parables, begin with theormula “the Kingdom o heaven is like,” and o Mark’s and o Luke’s

o this list one may add the Parable o the Fish Net (Mt. xiii -), i one acceptsthe arguments o Quispel in atian and the Gospel o Tomas (Leiden, ), pp. -.He argues that Tomas’s version o the parable (logion : a “large” fish is caught) has aclaim to great antiquity.

In the process o researching this article, I developed an alternative interpretationo Tomas’s version o the parable. According to this, the eelings o a shepherd who

has lost his largest sheep, who struggles searching or it, and who finds it, are like theemotional quest o a man who is searching or the Kingdom (which is, quite naturally,the “largest,” most important thing in his lie). When he finds it, he rejoices, or he hasound that which was lost.

Tis theme o finding is, o course, well known in the canonical parables. Te “joyo unexpected recovery (or discovery)” is ound in the parables o the reasure, LostCoin, Pearl and Prodigal Son.

Although this interpretation will appeal to the structuralist, has a certain homileticalappeal, and is non-gnostic, I reject it as not doing justice to the O roots o the parable.

It has been said that the best test o an exegesis is whether the exegete, afer con-sidering all the alternatives, is driven to accept an exegesis which he finds personally

distasteul, even unacceptable. Te xenophobic interpretation given in the text o thisarticle meets that test. Te interpretation considered in this ootnote, although interest-ing, ails that test.


28/634

begin with “the Kingdom o God is like.” Tus, Tomas’s introductionis in agreement with numerous canonical parallels.

We have already commented on the secondary nature o the evange-lists’ settings and applications o the parable. Matthew makes it instruc-tion directed at the church (a) to seek out the erring brother, or (b)not to cause “little ones” to sin. Luke aims it at Jesus’ opponents as anexplanation o his eating with “sinners.” In each o these circumstancesthe parable has been temporalized by being linked to a particular situ-ation which, in turn, has inused the parable with specific allegoricalovertones.

Te parable, however, is based on Ez. xxxiv , a verse which is es-chatological. It is part o a revelation God is giving Ezekiel, command-ing him to “prophesy against the shepherds o Israel.” God will seekout his sheep (v. ), judge them (v. ) and give them rest in Elysianpastures (vv. ff.). Tomas alone has maintained this eschatologicaltone by stating that “the Kingdom is like”. In Matthew the emphasis isparenetic, and in Luke it is polemic. Where, then, did Tomas gain hisknowledge o the O roots o the parable? It could not have been romMatthew or Luke, or neither has this insight.

As with his understanding o the meaning o the parable, Tomas

must have gained this eschatological insight rom a source anterior toor independent rom the synoptic gospels.

III

Many scholars are inclined to see Luke as preserving the most origi-nal version o the parable. Jeremias has given our reasons or this.First, Matthew has cast the parable in the parenetic ramework o theSitz-im-Leben-der-Kirche. Luke has preserved the Sitz-im-Leben-Jesu, a

conrontation with the scribes and Pharisees. Hence, Luke is preer-able to Matthew. Second, as a corollary, Luke has preserved the originalaudience (parables tend to become addressed to smaller audiences asthey evolve). Tird, Luke is not allegorical, while Matthew is allegorical

For our purposes it is unimportant i the eschatology is realized or uturistic. F. Schnider, op. cit. (see n. ), p. , is o this opinion. Other scholars merely indi-

cate that Tomas’s logia are dependent upon the synoptic gospels, e.g. H. Schürmann,“Das Tomasevangelium und das lukanische Sondergut,” Biblische Zeitschrif , n.. vii

(), pp. .; H. MacArthur, “Te Dependence o the Gospel o Tomas on theSynoptics,” Expository imes, lxxi (), pp. -. Jeremias, op. cit., pp. , , ., and .


29/634

(non-allegorical material is more primitive). Finally, Luke relates theipsissima verba Christi in τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν and in the concluding λέγω ὑμῖν.

Tis is largely a matter o choosing one’s scholars. Benoit and Bois-mard eel that “l’introduction des vv. - est donc lucanienne, probable-ment de l’ultime Rédacteur”. And Bultmann argues that the Mattheanτί ὑμῖν δοκεῖ is original, not Luke’s τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν.

In order to gain firmer ground, the application o literary, redactionand theological criticism is needed. Tese methods produce evidencewhich speaks against the accepted theory that Luke has preserved themost primitive version.

Can it be insignificant that Luke consistently reads ἀπόλλυμι orthe Matthean πλανάομαι? Our tracing o the origin o the parable toEz. xxxiv is confirmed by the presence o both the Matthean andLucan variants in the sel-same verse. Te Hebrew text o v. a hasbeen rendered by the LXX as τὸ ἀπολωλὸς ζητήσω καὶ τὸ πλανώμενονἐπιστρέψω. Our task is to determine i either image was ound in Q, andi so, whether it is to be ound | in Matthew or in Luke. Since ἀπόλλυμιis used with great requency by both evangelists, we are orced to useπλανάομαι as our starting point.

I we omit rom consideration or the moment the text o the parable,

then we discover that πλανάομαι and πλανάω are verbs which are in nei-ther evangelist’s own vocabulary. When πλανάομαι or πλανάω occur ineither gospel, they owe their usage to the Marcan parallel. Neither Mat-thew nor Luke-Acts uses either verb except when quoting rom Mark.

What is even more significant is that although Mark uses πλανάομαι times, πλανάω times and ἀπο-πλανάω once, and Matthew obedi-ently reproduces o these instances, Luke reproduces only one.

Benoit and Boismard, op. cit., Vol. II, p. . R. Bultmann, Te History o the Synoptic radition, second edition (New York,

), p. . Te data are best presented tabularly:

Mt. Mk. Lk.Case πλανᾶσϑε (xxii ) πλανᾶσϑε (xii ) — (omits)

[Case — (omits) πλανᾶσϑε (xii ) — (omits)]Case πλανήσῃ (xxiv ) πλανήσῃ (xiii ) πλανηϑῆτε (xxi )Case πλανήσουσιν (xxiv ) πλανήσουσιν (xiii ) — (omits)Case πλανῆσαι (xxiv ) ἀποπλανᾶν (xiii ) — (omits)

I have assumed that Mt. xxiv is a doublet and expansion o xxiv , and thereore havenot included it in this table. Matthew and Luke both omit Case , or it is a Marcan aside.Luke omits every Case except , where he modifies the Marcan verb’s number, person

and voice. Whenever Matthew reproduces Mark’s verb, he does so without alteration,save in Case , where he alters the tense o the infinitive, and drops the ἀπο- prefix oἀποπλανᾶν, which is used at only one other point in the entire N (I im. vi ).


30/634

Armed with the acts that () neither πλανάομαι nor πλανάω norἀπο-πλανάω is a part o either Matthew’s or Luke’s own vocabulary;that () Matthew uses the verbs only when quoting rom a source; andthat () Luke shows a decided aversion to the verbs by omitting them times, let us now turn our attention to the pericope o the Lost Sheep.

Tese insights lead us to conclude that Matthew has once againquoted his source (in this case Q) verbatim, just as he has quoted Mark

verbatim times (the ourth quotation is not verbatim; Matthew has al-tered Mark’s rare ἀποπλανᾶν to πλανῆσαι). And Luke, true to orm, ap-pears to have avoided πλανάομαι by, in this case, substituting ἀπόλλυμι.Tereore it appears that only Matthew has preserved the verb encoun-tered in the source lying behind Matthew and Luke.

Tis conclusion may be corroborated by three urther tests. Te firstis based on the parallelismus membrorum ound in the Ezekiel pas-sage. Te first dyad consists o the lost (ἀπόλλυμι) who will be sought (ζητέω). In the second dyad the strayed (πλανάομαι) will be broughtback (ἐπιστρέψω). In the parable, the emphasis is on the result, on anaction which the shepherd completes. It is not simply a seeking whichgoes on, but rather a seeking which has reached its conclusion in abringing back. And in Ezekiel, the dyad which contains bring back also

contains πλανάομαι. For the purposes o this parable, the first dyad(lost : sought ) has been subsumed in this second dyad (strayed : broughtback). And πλανάμαι is the verb we presumed Matthew to have oundin his source.

A second test is possible through theological criticism. Te firstmeaning o ἀπόλλυμι is “ruin, destroy,” while the first meaning o πλα-νάομαι is “to go astray.” ἀπόλλυμι carries significant theological bag-gage in that it connotes spiritual “perishing.” In that case, why wouldMatthew, i he ound ἀπόλλυμι in his source, delete this highly signifi-

cant terminus technicus and substitute πλανάομαι? Teological criti-cism posits the least theologically developed term as the earlier, namelyMatthew’s πλανάομαι.

Te third test is internal. Luke’s choice o ἀπόλλυμι dovetails per-ectly with his allegorized recension. Does not ἀπόλλυμι intensiy theallegorical rôles in Luke’s story? Te man does not go to bring backsheep which simply have strayed, but to rescue those who are spiritually“perished,” i.e. the sinners with whom Jesus is eating.

All o this suggests that Luke stands at the end, not the beginning,

o the redactional chain. We are driven to conclude that Matthew and


31/634

Tomas, whose is equivalent to πλανάομαι, have preserved atradition more primitive than Luke.

IV

Literary criticism notes that Matthew reads ἐπὶ τὰ ὄρη against the Lucanἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ. Teological criticism tells us that ἔρημος is a more devel-oped term than ὄρος. Israel wanders in the “wilderness,” Jesus retreatsto it, and John the Baptist lives in the ἔρημος. Tereore it appears thatLuke’s ἔρημος is an elaboration o ὄρος, | which (let us postulate, or themoment) was read by Q. Te reverse would seem improbable, or why

would Matthew remove the highly significant theological term ἔρημος, ihe ound it in Q, and substitute ὄρος? Te direction o evolution is clearlyrom ὄρος to ἔρημος. Since Luke’s reading has no precedent in the par-able’s O source, and serves no apparent purpose in the text, we are justi-fied in regarding ἔρημος as an elaboration on Q’s projected reading, ὄρος.

Although may translate either πλανάομαι or ἀπόλλυμι, it is the only trans-lation or πλανάομαι. is the usual translation or ἀπόλλυμι. See W. Crum, ACoptic Dictionary (Oxord, ), pp. , .

J. Mánek, “On the Mountain—On the Plain,” Nov. est., ix (), pp. -, alsohas suggested that Luke modified the text or theological reasons. However, he arrivesat that conclusion by a quite different route, contending that the category “mountain”has a special meaning or Luke, and hence he is chary in using it.

Luke’s ἔρημος is to be ound in Ez. xxxiv , but in just the opposite sense to whichLuke uses it. In Ezekiel (v. ), the sheep “dwell securely in the wilderness” afer beingrescued rom their dispersal in the ὄρη (v. ).

From a source critical perspective, one must view with scepticism the contentiono Jeremias (Parables, p. ) that the Aramaic bet .ura lies behind the “translational variant(s)” in Luke, or its Hebrew counterpart () does not occur in Ez. xxxiv. Tesuggestion o M. Black in An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, third edi-tion with appendix (Oxord, ), p. , n. , that “(t .ura) is the equivalent o Hebrew

sadheh” is subject to the same criticism. Black quotes with approval Joüon, who statesthat t .ura may render either ἀγρός or ὄρος. But sadheh is not ound in any context in Ez.xxxiv which would give rise to such a usage as we find in Luke or Matthew (in Ez. vv. and it is used in the construction and in v. it is used in the phrase ). In any event, ἄγρος indicates useable land, which is the exact opposite o ἔρημοςor ὄρος. Moreover, the variant we are concerned with is ἔρημος, not ἄγρος!

Jeremias and Black may be correct philologically, but they ignore the findings osource criticism. One o the supposed Hebrew or Aramaic/Syriac antecedents ( t .ura)is not even ound in Ez. xxxiv, and the other (sadheh) is not ound in any sense whichwould give rise to the Matthean-Lucan divergence.

One is reminded o M. Goulder’s comment on another hypothetical Aramaic read-

ing which Jeremias proposes to resolve the divergence between Matthew’s ϑέλημα andLuke’s χαρά in this same parable: “How can we trust Aramaic conjectures that do noteven fit the text as it is ?” ( Midrash and Lection in Matthew, p. , n. ).


32/634

In view o this, how is it possible to presume that Luke, the mostdeveloped o the texts, preserves the more primitive version o the par-able? Such a view violates the accepted canons o criticism without pre-senting any compelling evidence or doing so.

What is most striking is that Tomas gives neither ὄρος nor ἔρημος.Uncontaminated by the Lucan elaboration, it is apparent that Tomasstands anterior to Luke. And since Tomas also lacks | the Mattheanὄρος, the question is raised whether Tomas’s reading might not ante-date the Matthean reading as well, which we presumed to have stoodin Q also.

[A possible source or Luke’s use o ἔρημος is ound in rabbinicsources. In Section I, the array o ideas which grew up around the tak-ing o a census was described. Census taking is especially associatedwith Moses and Israel’s time bemidbar . It is an acknowledged act thatthere were attempts to make Jesus conorm to the image o Moses. Inthe Midrashim we find that ...

Moses was tested by God through sheep ... when Moses ... was tend-ing the flocks o Jethro in the wilderness, a little kid escaped rom him ...When it reached the shady place, there appeared to view a pool o waterand the kid stopped to drink. When Moses approached it, he said: “I didnot know that you ran away because o thirst; you must be weary .”

—Exod. R. ii

Might the urge to mould Jesus into a latter-day Moses have inspiredLuke to borrow ἔρημος rom this tradition? And might this same tradi-tion have provided the precedent or describing the stray sheep as a “lit-tle,” a “weary” young “kid,” as Matthew, especially, and Luke are wont todo ? In the next Section we will have reason to reer back to this samepassage or another parallel, which increases the likelihood that Lukewas acquainted with this rabbinic tradition.]

V

Te picture o the man laying the sheep on his shoulders in Luke (v. )is missing rom Matthew. In view o this, it can be said that the imageis a Lucan invention. Tis argues against Luke’s preserving the more

It is worth noting that Tomas’s reading, omitting both the Lucan ἔρημος and theMatthean ὄρος, is in agreement with prima manus at Matthew xviii .

H. Schoeps, Teologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums (übingen, ), pp.-; W. Meeks, Te Prophet-King, Moses raditions and the Johannine Christology ,Supp. Nov. est. xiv (Leiden, ).


33/634

primitive version, or what reason could there have been or Matthewto suppress this colourul touch ? Te shorter text claims our attentionas the more primitive, and once again Tomas presents a text lackingthis expansion.

Various scholars already have drawn attention to a rabbinic paral-lel which may shed light on the Lucan addition. It ollows immediatelyupon the last sentence quoted above in Section IV.

“... that you ran away because o thirst; you must be weary.” So he placedthe kid on his shoulder and walked away . Tereupon God said: “Becausethou hast mercy in leading the flock o a mortal, thou wilt assuredly tendmy flock Israel.”

—Exod. R. ii

In view o the act that three parallels with the Lucan text are to beound in this brie passage rom the Midrash (the flock is in the wil-derness; the sheep which strays is little, weak [implied, according toJeremias, by Luke, and strongly suggested by Matthew]; the sheep iscarried back on the shepherd’s shoulders), it seems most reasonableto presume that Luke used it as a model or the corresponding ea-tures in his parable. Further, the aim o the rabbinic quotation, theestablishment o the legitimacy o Moses’ authority to be shepherd o

Israel, could be applied with equal ease to Jesus. As Moses tended hisflock o real sheep, so Jesus tends his flock o human sheep (sinners);as Moses’ conscientious behaviour proved him worthy o being madeshepherd o Israel, so Jesus’ conscientious pursuit o his task proveshim to be the Christ.

VI

An apparent singularity o Tomas is the atigue o the shepherd. InTomas the shepherd “sought or (the sheep) until he ound it. Havingtired himsel out ...”

Henss has subscribed to a gnostic interpretation o Tomas, termingthe exertion o the shepherd part o a “gnostischen Erlösungsprozess”. A more plausible suggestion is that this effort by the shepherd is part

Tis text has been cited by, among others, J. J. Wettstein, Novum estamentumGraecum (Graz, ; a reprint o the edition o ), Vol. I, p. ; H. Strack and P.Billerbeck, Kommentar zum neuen estament aus almud und Midrasch, sixth edition

reprinted (Munich, ), Vol. II, p. . W. Henss, Das Verhältnis zwischen Diatessaron, christlicher Gnosis und “Westernext” , BZNW (Berlin, ), p. .


34/634

o a primitive Jewish-Christian christology, arising rom the sufferingservant passage in Isaiah liii. Schoeps | has described such a christol-ogy, and Quispel eels he has traced it elsewhere in Tomas (logion).

I cannot accept this thesis, or it is unnecessary to introduce intoTomas an element which is otherwise conspicuous only by its ab-sence—the christological, messianic pronouncement—in order to ex-plain this eature o the parable.

Instead, I would again point to the O, where a prominent eature oGod’s relationship with Israel is his long-suffering patience: “You havewearied me with your iniquities” (Is. xliii ).

Tis same sentiment is also present in the rabbinic sources, where ittoo is bound up with the census moti. Following on the last sentenceo Pesik .ta Rabbati ., quoted above in Section I, where God explainsthat his people alone are to be numbered because they are “Mine owntreasure,” the text continues:

“And even as a man’s own treasures are dear to him, so these are dear to Me because o the trouble they put Me to. What a great cost they put meto!” ... (No wonder that elsewhere) the Holy One, blessed be He, reerredto Israel as “Ephraim my dear son (Jer. xxxi ), the son who put Me topayment or so dear a price.”

—Pĕsik .ta Rabbati .

Te exertion o the shepherd is not necessarily either messianic orgnostic, but rather a typically O eature o God’s relationship with Is-rael—that is, with the sheep o Tomas’s parable.

VII

Te presumption that Tomas’s conclusion (“I love thee more than the

ninety-nine.”) is his own invention is not well ounded. o begin with,ertullian, in de Paenitentia , reveals that he is amiliar with the tradi-tion o the one lost sheep being loved more than the rest:

errat et una pastoris ovicula, sed grex unā carior non erat: una illa con-quiritur, una pro omnibus desideratur .

H. Schoeps, op. cit., p. . G. Quispel, Makarius, das Tomasevangelium und das Lied von der Perle, Supp.

Nov. est. xv (Leiden, ), p. . Further reerences are Is. i and vii ; Jer. vi ii and xv ; Mal. ii . G. Quispel, atian, op. cit., p. .


35/634

Moreover, Guillaumont has pointed out that “I love thee” in Tomascorresponds to χαίρει ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ, in Matthew (xviii ). | Tomas’s finalsentence is then in agreement with Matthew, save that Tomas address-es the saying directly to the sheep rather than to Matthew’s contrivedaudience, and Tomas does not have the explanatory τοῖς μὴ πεπλα-νημένοις. Once again, or brevity and directness o style, Tomas’s read-ing, with its direct address and without the explanatory phrase, appearsto be anterior to the synoptic versions, or independent rom them.

Conclusion

In view o this evidence, how is it possible to assert “dass das Tomas-evangelium literarisch direkt von den Synoptikern abhängig ist (wobeisich Tomas stärker an Lukas anlehnt)”?

When the charge o “gnosticism by association” is removed, one ob-serves that on the basis o source criticism () Tomas’s version o theparable is not gnostic. raditio-historical study indicates that Tomashas preserved a very primitive recension o the parable, rich in O im-agery and serving revelatory, programmatic and polemic causes. Tis,along with application o the other higher critical methods, leads us

to the conclusion that () Tomas’s version is certainly not depend-ent upon the synoptic versions. And on the basis o brevior lectio po-tior , absence o specific allegorical identifications, lack o implied orexpressed messianism, its aithulness to the eschatological tone o theEzekiel text and its xenophobic intent, one is driven to conclude that() Tomas’s version o the parable is more primitive than the synoptic

versions o the parable.

A. Guillaumont, “Sémitismes dans les logia de Jésus retrouvés à Nag-Hamâdi,” Journal Asiatique, ccxliv (), p. , suggests that the variance rests on an Aramaicsubstratum, which read , equivalent to the Greek εὐδοκεῖν. “Χαίρειν des synop-tiques a pu en être aussi une traduction, moins bonne peut-être, mais suffisammentexacte.”

H. Montefiore and H. E. W. urner, Tomas and the Evangelists, SB (London,), p. , eel that the direct address is “an authentic touch.” F. Schnider, op. cit., p. , n. .


36/634

CHAPER WO

ROMANOS AND HE DIAESSARON:READINGS AND MEHOD*

Tis article will present evidence to demonstrate that Romanos, ‘theMelodist’, is a witness to the Diatessaron o atian. Six new Diatessa-ronic readings, present in both Romanos and other Diatessaronic wit-nesses, are adduced as evidence or this conclusion. Tese new readings

are significant not only or their Diatessaronic status, but also or theirtextual, theological and historical import.Te article is divided into our sections. Te first is a brie introduc-

tion to Romanos, ‘the Christian Pindar’. Te second section examinesthe connexion between Romanos and Syriac textual traditions. Evi-dence is presented to show that Romanos was amiliar with the SyriacEphrem, including Ephrem’s Commentary, presumably written uponthe Diatessaron o atian. Te third section proposes three criteriaby means o which one may discriminate between readings which are

probably coincidental agreements among proposed Diatessaronic wit-nesses, and readings which have an overwhelming probability o beinggenuine Diatessaronic readings. Te ourth and final section demon-strates these criteria in action, working upon readings in Romanos.

I. Romanos

Romanos, ὁ μελῳδός, has been termed ‘the greatest Christian poet’. We pre-sume that he was born c. , and died afer . According to the Menaia and Synaxaria o the Byzantine Church, he was ‘o the Hebrew race’, and

* Originally published in New estament Studies . () -. © CambridgeUniversity Press. Reproduced with permission. Portions o this article were presentedto the ‘extual History o N Writings in the Second Century’ seminar at the th Gen-eral Meeting o S.N..S. in Leuven, Belgium, rd-th August, .

Te dates are arrived at by inerence. See H.-G. Beck, Kirche und theologische Lite-ratur im byzantinischen Reich (München, ), p. ; P. Maas, ‘Die Chronologie derHymnen des Romanos’, ByZ (), pp. -; J. Grosdidier de Matons, Romanos le Mélode (Paris, ), pp. -.

Te source or this inormation is the second strophe o the hymn or Romanos’east day (October st); the text is most readily accessible in Grosdidier de Matons,Romanos, p. .


37/634

came rom Emesa in Syria. He trained as a deacon in Berytus (modernBeirut), and then moved to Constantinople, where he gained ame orhis hymns. Tese were called kontakia, and represented a new poeticgenre. Approximately fify o these hymns may be unquestionably at-tributed to Romanos. O these, the majority deal with biblical stories,retelling them in a dramatic ashion, emphasizing the psychology o thecharacters. Most o the hymns deal with events in the lie o Jesus. Tereadings and traditions present in these hymns make them o interestto N textual scholarship.

Te kontakia o Romanos have been studied by Classicists searchingor the origin o this new poetic orm. Did it arise spontaneously romGreek poetry, or was it imported—and i so, whence? Te last centu-ry o Classical scholarship has concluded that Romanos’ poetic ormwas o Syrian origin. Karl Krumbacher, Paul Maas and C. A. rypanis,the three generations o scholars responsible or the so-called Oxordedition o the hymns, were o this opinion. Liturgists, such as AntonBaumstark, and musicologists, such as Egon Wellesz, agreed.

Te most recent edition o the hymns, that o José Grosdidier de Ma-tons in the Sources chrétiennes series, is an excellent one. In a separatemonograph, Romanos, le Mélode (Paris, ), Grosdidier de Matons

has challenged the conclusion reached by the editors o the Oxord edi-tion. Grosdidier de Matons states:

... il n’y a rien dans la poésie syriaque qui puisse être directement assimi-leé au kontakion. Celui-ci, jusqu’à preuve du contraire, passe à juste titrepour une création originale du génie grec ...

He urther asserts that

... rien n’indique qu’il ait eu accès à des ouvrages écrits en langue syriaque ...Là encore, rien n’indique que Romanos ait eu le texte d’Ephrem sous les yeux.

K. Krumbacher, ‘Miscellen zu Romanos’, SBAW.PPH, Band XXIV, Abt. Ill(München, ), pp. -; P. Maas and C. A. rypanis, in the Introduction to theirso-called ‘Oxord edition’ o the hymns, Sancti Romani Melodi Cantica, Cantica Genu-ina (Oxord, ).

A. Baumstark, ‘Syrische und hellenistische Dichtung’, Gottesminne (/), pp.-; ‘Hymns (Greek Christian)’ in the ERE (Edinburgh, ), Vol. , pp. -.

E. Wellesz, A History o Byzantine Music and Hymnography (Oxord, J), pp., , -,.

Hymnes, Vols. I-V, respectively SC ,,, and (Paris, -). All re-erences to Romanos’ hymns in this article are made to this edition, by Vol. number and

page in the ootnote, and by hymn number and strophe number in the text. Te quotations are, respectively, rom pp. and . How Grosdidier de Matons ar-rived at these conclusions mystifies me, or he himsel ofen speaks o parallels o thought


38/634

Contact with the Greek Ephrem is ‘plus soupçonnable’, but not with theSyriac Ephrem.

II. Romanos’ Connexion with Syriac extual raditions and Ephrem Syrus

Te evidence has convinced me that Grosdidier de Matons is in erroron this point. A ew examples should demonstrate why I came to thatconclusion.

A) In Romanos’ Fifh Hymn on the Resurrection (XLIV.), Adam ad-dresses the ollowing lines to Hades:

Ὥστε καὶ πληγὰς δι’ ἐμὲ οὐκ ἂν παραιτήσηται,

δεύτερος Ἀδὰμ δι’ ἐμὲ γενήσεταί μου ὁ Σωτήρ· τὴν ἐμὴν τιμωρίαν δι’ ἐμὲ ὑπενέγκῃ τὴν σάρκα μου φορέσας, καϑάπερ κἀγώ·

ὃν Χερουβὶμ οὐχ ὁρᾷ, τούτου νύξουσι πλευρὰν καὶ ὕδωρ ἀναβλύσει καὶ τὸν καύσωνά μου σβέσει·

Adam speaking:‘Tereore he would not reuse even blows or me, Te Second Adam will become the Saviour on account o me;He would endure my punishment or me Wearing my flesh, just as I do;

Tey will pierce the side o Him whom the Cherubim do not see And water will gush orth and extinguish my (Adam’s) burning heat.

Now compare the image offered by Ephrem in the Syriac recension ohis Commentary , presumed to have been written on the Diatessaron oatian:

Quia enim ignis qui arsit in Adamo e costa sua arsit in eo, ideo perossumest latus Adami secundi et exiit ex eo uvius aquarum, ad exstinguendumignem Adami primi.

In both writers, the water which comes rom the side o the Second Adamis that which extinguishes the re (so Ephrem; Romanos has burningheat ) o the First Adam.

or practice with Syria (cp. Vol. II, pp. , ). And in the same series in which Gros-didier de Matons published his edition o Romanos, L. Leloir has published a Frenchtranslation o the Syriac and Armenian recensions o Ephrem’s Commentary (SC ),which contains abundant parallels with Romanos’ work. See examples A and B, inra.

Vol. IV, p. . Chap. XXI.: L. Leloir, Saint Éphrem, Commentaire de l’évangile concordant, Ches-

ter Beatty Monographs (Dublin, ), p. , hereafer cited as Leloir, Beatty; the samereading is also in the Armenian recension, L. Leloir, Saint Éphrem, Commentaire del’évangile concordant, CSCO (Louvain, ), p. , hereafer cited as Leloir, CSCO.


39/634

B) Several times, Romanos makes un o ‘brave’ Peter, who was, inact, rightened by a mere girl.

Hymn on Peter’s Denial (XXXIV.): Ἀφῆκες, ἀπόστολε, ταχέως τὸ κράτημα, καὶ κόρη σε ἔρριψεν· ἀλλ’ ἀνάστηϑι, ἐξάλλου καὶ ἀνάζωσαι τὴν πρώτην ἰσχύν, ὡς ἀϑλητής·

‘Apostle, you let go your grip quickly, and a girl threw you down; But raise yoursel, get up and be revived to your first strength,

as an athlete.’

Hymn on Peter’s Denial (XXXIV.): Κόρη προσῆλϑέ σοι μικρά, ἥτις καὶ τάχα

ψελλίζουσα εἶπεν ἃ εἶπεν πρὸς σέ,καὶ ταύτης ὡς βρυγμὸν δειλιάσας τὸν ψελλισμόν, ἀπεφήνω πρὸς ταύτην·

‘A young girl came up to you, she who perhaps also Spoke alteringly, she spoke to you,And you, being terried by her stammer, as by the gnashing o teeth, Answered her:’

Hymn on Peter’s Denial (XXXIV.): Διὰ τί κόρη σε ἐπτόησε ...

‘Why did the young girl terriy you (Peter) ...’

Ephrem has made the same ironic observation in the Armenian recen-sion o his Commentary , which is a translation rom the Syriac:

Si enim Simon, quem ancilla una terruerat ...

C) Parallels also exist between Ephrem’s hymns and those o Roma-nos. For example, Ephrem, in his Seventh Hymn on Mary () , offers thisparadox:

Coeli pro tua majestate angustiores suntEt paupercula portat te.

In his Hymn on the Annunciation (IX.), Romanos offers the same ob-servation, now cast as a rhetorical question rom the angel Gabriel:

Vol. IV, p. . Ibid. Ibid.

Chap. XX.: Leloir, CSCO, p. . . J. Lamy, Sancti Ephraem Syri Hymni et Sermones (Mechliniae, ), Vol. II,p. .


40/634

Ὅλος, φησίν, ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ὁ πύρινος ϑρόνος οὐ χωρεῖ μου τὸν δεσπότην, καὶ ἡ εὐτελὴς αὕτη πῶς ὑποδέχεται;

‘All heaven,’ he said, ‘and the throne o fire cannot contain my master;How can this poor girl receive him?’

D) Ephrem makes much o Jesus as the re, and Mary as the thorn bush,a parallel with the burning bush which Moses beheld. Te earthly bushmade the divine maniest without itsel being destroyed. Romanos usesthis same image no ewer than five times. As i that is not enoughevidence o dependence, the parallelism goes even one step urther, or

both writers specifically mention Moses loosening his sandals beorethe bush.

Ephrem, Memra on the Nativity: It is a source o great amazement, my beloved, ... ... and how a womb o flesh was able to carry flaming fire,

and how a flame dweltin a moist womb which did not get burnt up.Just as the bush on Horeb boreGod in the flame,

so did Mary bearChrist in her virginity ...

A voice cried out o the bush to Mosesthat he loose his sandals rom his eet ...

Romanos, Hymn on the Annunciation (IX.):Joseph, amazed when he first beholds the pregnant virgin, speaks: ... Ὦ φαεινή, φλόγα ὁρῶ καὶ ἀνϑρακιὰν κυκλοῦσάν σε·

διὰ τοῦτο, Μαριάμ, πλήττομαι· φύλαξόν με καὶ μὴ φλέξῃς με· κλίβανο�