The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila and the Early Harmonistic Traditions

Author(s): J. Neville Birdsall

Source: Novum Testamentum, Vol. 22, Fasc. 1 (Jan., 1980), pp. 66-77
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560531 .
Accessed: 15/06/2014 19:19
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Novum Testamentum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.212 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:19:15 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Novum Testamentum,Vol. XXII, fasc. I

THE DIALOGUE OF TIMOTHY AND AQUILA

AND THE EARLY HARMONISTIC TRADITIONS
BY

J. NEVILLE BIRDSALL
Birmingham

The Dialogue of Timothyand Aquila was firstpublishedby

F. C. CONYBEARE1) in 1898 and since then has received scant

attentionfromstudentsof early Christianliterature.Apart from

short articles by GOODSPEED

2)

and TAMILIA 3), who are both

concernedsolelywithcodicological
and textualdata, therehas been
little reference to it and less discussion4). LUKYN WILLIAMS
dealtwithit in hisstudyof anti-Jewish
polemic(AdversusJudaeos) 5) and wishesto date it in the secondcenturywhereasmost
otherstreatit as oflate fourthcenturyprovenance,
as does JAMES
in "The Conflict
ofChurchand Synagogue"6).
PARKES, forinstance,
The presentpaperlimitsitselfto theinvestigation
ofthosepassages
whichbear upon synopticmaterialin the Dialogue,one of which
takes us also into the formof one quotationfromthe Old Testament: perhapsit may stimulatethe new editionand fullerstudy
whichthisintriguing
documentrequires.
a numberof the gospel citationsof the
discussed
Conybeare
Dialogue withoutreachingany definiteconclusion:he notes a
numberofaffinities
withthetraditions
whichlaterprovidedcharac1) The Dialogues ofAthanasiusand Zacchaeus,and of Timothyand Aquila,
edited by Fred. C. CONYBEARE M.A., in AnecdotaOxoniensia,Classical Series
Part viii, Oxford 1898.
2)

Edgar J.

unpublished

GOODSPEED,

manuscripts,"

"The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila: two

in Journal of Biblical

Literature 23 (1904),

pp. 58-78.
3) De Timothei Christiani et Aquilae Judaei dialogo scripsit Donatus

Tamilia. Roma i9oi.

4) A list of reviews (with excerpts) may be found in the Bibliographie
Critique of F. C. CONYBEARE, by L. MARItS: Revue des A?tudesArminiennes,
T.VI (1926) pp. 185-328, s.n. 125 (pp. 244
ff.).
5) Adversus Judaeos. A Bird's-eye view of ChristianApologiae until the

Renaissance,Cambridge 1935. ch. viii.

6) A History of Antisemitism, vol. I, London 1934, pp. xviii and 28o.

Cp. Manfred HOFFMANN, Der Dialog bei den christlichen Schriftstellernder

erstendrei Jahrhunderte,
Berlin 1966, pp. io and 163.

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.212 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:19:15 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE DIALOGUE OF TIMOTHY AND AQUILA

67

teristicreadingsoftheDiatessarontradition,
otherswhichhe would
link the Gospel of Peter,and writesas if both these groupsof
readingsshowed traces of a gospel antecedentto the canonical
tradition7). He also discernsan adoptionistchristology
and thus
an
for
date
the
source
of
these
features.
postulates early
We shall particularlyconcentrateupon those passages which
showlinkswiththe harmonistic
traditionbest seen in the various
formsof the Diatessaron:the impressiongainedfromthesemay
wellbe confirmed
in theotherpassages.We followtheorderofthe
folia of Vat gr. Pii PP. II as givenby Conybeare,givingalso the
ofhisedition.
page reference
Fol. I133v (pg. IoI)

TO

x0racctcca0ce To

vaoC~ axaoN tAov '&

The derivationofthisis Lk. xxiii45 (influenced

in wordorder
rXk.
Matt.
of
the
mountains
xxvii
51a): moving
by
(whereMatt. loc.
cit.has earthquake): Matt.xxvii 5Ib (withv.1. sppoanavcv
1. saoXLyacxv),52 (followedby a midrashicexpansionof the resurrection
of thesaintswithreference
to theharrowing
ofHell). The midrash
is unattested8) but the introduction
of the shakenmountainsis
known in two places withinthe Diatessaric tradition,widely
separated in time and space. These are, firstly,in Ephraim's
on the ConcordantGospel9): "Et montescommoti
Commentary
et
sunt, sepulcraaperta sunt,et velumscissumest" 10): secondly,
thia
the Old Saxon Heliand 11.5662-5665erda biboda/hrisidun
hohun bergosharda stenoscludun/felisosafterthemfeldeendi
thatfehalacan tebrast/an middionan tue 11) (in Scott'srendering
O.c. Prolegomena,pp. xii-xxv.
CONYBEAREwas evidentlypuzzled by this as he wrotethat it "must be
taken fromsome ancientapocryph" (op.cit.,p. xxiv). We stillcannotidentify
this,but since the writingof this paper it has been foundthat a verysimilar
account is knownin Epiphanius De Gemmis(edited by R. P. BLAKE, Studies
and Documents,no. 2, London 1934) PP. 75 f. (Georgian text) and 162 f.
(English translation).In his introduction(op.cit.,p. XCVIII), BLAKE drew
attentionto a furthersimilaraccount in the Gospel of Nicodemus (Evangelia
7)

8)

apocrypha, ed. C. TISCHENDORF, Leipzig

1853, PP. 389 and 417 f.). It is

strange that CONYBEARE, who drew so many parallels from this source,
should have missed this furtheraffinity.
9) Saint

Ephrem. Commentaire de l'Evangile Concordant ...,

E~dit6 et

Traduit par Dom Louis LELOIR in ChesterBeattyMonographsno. 8, Dublin

1963, XXI.5 (p. 21o).

10) Ibid., p. 211.
11) Heliand und Genesis,herausgegebenvon Otto BEHAGEL, 8. Auflage ...
von Walther MITZKA (Tiibingen 1965), p. 195.

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.212 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:19:15 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

68

J. NEVILLEBIRDSALL

"the earth did tremble/and the high mountainsshook and the

hard stonesplitopen/the cragson the fields;and the faircurtain
was rent/was tornin twodownthemiddle")12). The exactrelationship of Heliand to the Diatessarictradition,much controverted
lately13),is not in point here: neitherthat poem, nor the text
knownto Ephraim,are exactlyidenticalwiththe Dialogue: but
bothshowan itemnot knownin the canonicaltraditionassociated
withthe portentsattendantupon the death of Christ.Fol. 135v.
(pg. io2)

=5,o
5-ocVtOv-Cr
&opOx6O4

xoQ7,bvpivY,.

ot ouACorL x64cv-o
a06v-e
This summary statement agrees in content with the

dicentesvae
additionsto Lk. xxiii 48 in Lvt (gI): revertebantur
nobisquae factasunthodiaepropterpeccata nostraappropinquavitenimdesolatiohierusalem
14): Syrsincur,"they... werebeating
on theirbreastsand saying: Woe to us! what hath befallenus?
woe to us fromour sins" 15): and Gospelof Petersect 25 ("6-s o'
oL EpZq yv6v4ESotov xOcxyVULcoS
LouAc0oLxoc~o0 'tpo3P6UEpoLxOC01
L4
noi~a~v
i4p~ocV-oo
x6xaoro xodvX&YtLv ou?'
tgOCL

16). Thiswas knownto

?yyLa~v xpu xoctTo,-IXoq'epoucXch~I)
from
the
concordant
Gospel17): et cum obtenebrati
Ephraim
essentoculi eorumecce illuminataest paululummenseorumVae
advenerunt
eratvae eratnobisaiunt,filiuserathicdeieccevenerunt
iudicia dirutionisIerusalem (xx. 28). Here once more, the respective traditions,while not verbally identical,are evidently
to the
relatedand rest upon some commonbasis. In a reference
crucifixion
scene,(fol.136v: pg. 103), we have mentionofmingled
to in the Diavinegarand gall, whichhas alreadybeen referred
in
of
In
the
a
list
testimonia.
contextof
logue (Fol. 87r: pg. 72)
12)

The Heliand, translatedfromthe Old Saxon by Mariana SCOTT, Chapel

Hill NC, I966, p. 194.

13) The main participants in the controversy were G. QUISPEL and

W. KROGMANN,
whose chiefcontributionsare referredto by A. F. J. KLIJN.
A Surveyof theResearchesinto the WesternText of theGospelsand ActsPart
Two 1949-z969, in Supplementsto Novum Testamentum,vol. xxi (Leiden
1969): to which should be added G. QUISPEL. "The Latin Tatian or the

Gospel of Thomas in Limburg," in JBL, 88, 1969, pp. 321-330.

Domini Nostri Iesu Christi latine. Pars Prior.

14) Novum Testamentum
Quattuor Evangelia. Oxonii, 1889-1898. Evangelium sec. Lucam ad loc.
16) Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, vol. I, Text, Cambridge 1904, pp. 412, 413.
de Pierre, par LEON VAGANAY (Paris 1930), pp. 268-271.

16) L'Evangile
17)

Saint Ephrem Commentairede L'Evangile Concordant,Version Arm&-

nienne, 6dit6e par Louis LELOIR (C.S.C.O.

137, Louvain 1953) PP. 30oo,301:

ID., VersionArm6nienne,traduitepar Louis LELOIR (C.S.C.O. 145, Louvain

1954) P. 215. (The Syriac is not extant).

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.212 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:19:15 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE DIALOGUE OF TIMOTHY AND AQUILA

69

the Dialogue it followsthe Johannine&46 (Jn.xix 28), as does a

referencein an Ephraimicpassage not explicitlyrelatedto the
ofEphraim's
Concordant
Gospel,viz. no. 817 in Leloir'srepertorium
from
the
this
is
found
also
in
the Persian
quotations
gospels18):
the
text
of Lvt (c)
Diatessaron19) and we may further
compare
at Jn.xix 29 "hysopoadmiscentes
spongiamergoplenamacetocum
fellepermixtumcomponentesobtuleruntori eius" 20). The phrase
is ultimately
dependentuponPs. 69.21and is linkedwiththeearlier
of
xxvii 34: withoutthe &4/Cwhichsets it in a
Matt.
draught
XX. 27:
Johanninecontextit is foundin Ephraim'scommentary:
"dederuntei acetumet fel" following
the promiseto the penitent
thief.The textofthe Dialogueshowslinkswithothersourcesthan
the Johannine:xpe?toL'evoqis derivedfromActs v 30 while x-aca-Es

is relatedto theMatthaeanrXaoc;ofxxvii48.
The longestand mostcomplexreference
to the gospelmaterial
is found on fol. I2Iv, I22r (pg. 93, 94). It is discussed by CONYwho pointsout the remarkableillogicalityof the arguBEARE,21)
mentat thispointof the Dialogue.The Jewasks what Jesussaid
in his trial,advertingto his silencebeforePilate: the Christian
givesmanypropheciesof judgement,heedlessof the factthat the
thatJesussaid noneoftheseduring
Jewcan assertwithcorrectness
his trial.The parableofthe vineyardand the murderous
vinedressersis thenintroduced,
in the contextofthe triumphalentry:and
finally,the word"Behold yourhouseis leftdesolate"is quotedas
the onlywordspokenby Jesuswhileon trial.This seemsto suggest
that the immediatesourceof the gospelmaterialin the Dialogue
must have been otherthan the canonicalgospels,since neither
contextual observationis correct.For CONYBEARE,the linkof the
that the
parable with the triumphalentryclearlydemonstrates
sourceis not the Diatessaron22),sincethe ArabicDiatessaronhas
the parablein its thirty-third
section,whereasthe entryis laterin
the thirty-ninth;
and the same relativesequenceis foundin Ephraem.It shouldbe noted,however,thatin the Westernharmony
traditionthe twopericopaeare foundin theirMatthaeansequence,
is) L'dvangile d'Aphrem d'apres les ouvres dditges, Recueil des textes par
Louis LELOIR, in C.S.C.O. 18o, Louvain, 1958, p. 133, cp. ibidem no. 818.
19) Diatessaron persiano, GIUSEPPE MESSINA (Rome 1951), IV.47 (p. 355).
von H. J. VOGELS, I.
20) Evangelium Colbertinum, herausgegeben ...
Text, Bonn 1953, p. 163.
21) O.c., Prolegomena, pp. xii-xvii.
22) O.c., p. xix.

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.212 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:19:15 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

J. NEVILLE BIRDSALL

70

and thus the parable is linked,althoughnot directly,with the

in the
thereareseveralfeatures
entryscene.Nevertheless,
preceding
ofJesuswhichareunknownto
ofthechildren's
reception
description
tradition
andto theharmony
thecanonicaltradition
alike;thephrase
T
the verb
the descriptionofthe cryof
q-ov rppa~ov,
?x6xXoocxv,
The firstphrase meets us, as CONYHosanna as
xa?r?aprpupouo-v.
BEARE notes 23), in the Acta Pilati, where the children'scry is an

o ena

intheJewishauthorities'
itemreported
depositionagainstJesus24).
The passage is clearly harmonized:a breakdownphrase by
phrase25) shows a closerlink with Matthewthan with Luke or
Mark,althoughit is not lackingin elementsfromthosesources.A
closelyMatthaeanfeatureis thesendingoftwogroupsofmessengers
beforethe finalsendingofthe onlyson. Yet a numberofelements
in the canonicaltraditionare absent: 'XL0oof6Xrcav
(Matt.xxi 35),
ixscpoXccv,

rlacraov (Mk. xii 4) find no echo while

too
ppLavocv

has no place herein the canonicaltext althoughit has linkswith

are abused.
the similarfeaturesof Matt. xxii 6 wheremessengers
Occasionallysinglewords,and moreoftenspecificconcatenations
ofwordsfindno parallelat all in thecanonicaltradition.Nowwhile
ofthe Diatessaron,
additionsare characteristic
shortinterpretative
both
Eastern
and
Western
follow
the canonical
its main streams
wordingmorecloselythan we findin the Dialogue. The Persian
Diatessarondoes indeedgive an expansionof thisparable26),but
we findtherethreegroupsvariouslytreated,includingbeingsawn
It would seem clear
asunder,the Isaianic mannerof martyrdom.
that Conybearewas correctin his rejectionof a Diatessaricorigin
forthisformoftheparable.
Yet as in thecases whichwe have alreadynoted,thereare some
see the Son "coming",a reading
Ephraimiclinks:the vinegrowers
knownin Mark,in some Greekmss. (includingthe chiefmss. of
the so-called Caesarean group), in the Harklean Syriac with
asterisk,and in the Armenianand Georgianversions.It was apparentlyin Ephraim'sgospeltext (XVI.i9: cp. XXI.I8) 27): but
23)

O.c.,p. xvi.

in Evangelia Apocrypha, Leipzig

Acta Pilati, ed. C. TISCHENDORF
1853, pp. 210, 268.
25) See the appended list.
26) O.c., III. 45 (p. 257,11.21, 22).
27) O.c. in notula 16 supra: text. pp. 233, 325; interpret.pp. 168 ("cum
24)

vidissent illi Filium quod veniebat") ("cum appropinquasset"), 231 cp.

veritatemsyram (not. 8 supra) pp. 220, 221 ("ex quo appropinquaverat").

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.212 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:19:15 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE DIALOGUE OF TIMOTHY AND AQUILA

71

thereseemsto be no otherevidenceforit in the Diatessarictradition. It was evidentlyan old text,owingsomethingperhapsto a

typologicallink withJoseph,whomAphrahatassociateswiththe
link may be seen in the same
Son in this parable28). A further
sectionin the formof words"the inheritanceshall be ours"29):
this is Markanand Lukan, and is knownin some Syriactextsof
Matthew.Its presencein Ephraim or the Diatessaronhowever
mightbe due to theexigencesofSyriacidiom.
The most strikinglink withEphraimhowevertakes us, as we
shall see, beyondthe gospeltextinto the regionof the use of the
prophetsin the early church.The Dialogue substitutesfor the
ofthecanonicaltext,reyZoq,
whichis otherwise
unattested.
cppacy?tv
In one ms. ofEphraimin theArmenianversion30) (theSyriacnot
beingextantat thispoint)thewordorm(wall) withpluralnumber,
is used in place of cang (fence)foundin the otherms. LELOIR
sincehe followstheotherms.:
gives the readingonlyin a footnote,
insolitam
but we shouldprobablyacceptthelectionem
as theoriginal
is
the
of
since
the
Armenian
text,
wording
(a) cang
Vulgate of
and
and
accommodation
Matthew
Mark,
may have taken place,
and (b) the readingormovk'(withwalls) is knownelsewherein the
Armenianarea. This is in the Pseudo-Ephraimic
workThe Interof
the
where
the
relevant
words
oftheparable
pretation
Gospel31)
as
ormovk'
are quoted
parspeac ew parspovk'amracoyczna (he
it withstrongwalls). SCHAEenclosedit withwallsand surrounded
FERS,who edited a commentedtranslationargued for a Syriac
originalof the workand forthe linksof its gospeltext withthe
Diatessaron,a hypothesiswidely accepted althoughthe Syriac
originalhas notcometo light.The textofthe Dialogueunlinkedas
it is withthe Diatessaron,maysuggestthattherewas a Greekform
with reLZoq(whetherin a formof the canonicaltext or in an uncanonical source) which underliesboth the readingsof the Eand thereadingoftheDialogue.
phraimictradition,
Both the Dialogue and the Pseudo-EphraimicInterpretation
quote Isaiah v in close proximityto the parable, the Dialogue
28)
29)

80)
31)

DemonstratioXXI.9, in Patrologia syriaca I, Paris, 1894,coll. 953, 954.

Ephraem, loc. cit.
Ibid. (text. arm. p. 233 fn. 15).
"Eine altsyrische antimarkionitischeErklirung von
J. SCHAEFERS,

Parabeln des Herrn," in NeutestamentlicheAbhandlungen VI.I-2, 1917, P- 173:

recentlyreedited by George A. EGAN,Saint Ephrem,An Exposition of the

Gospel,in C.S.C.O. 291, 292, Louvain 1968; see pp. 32 f. and 28 f.

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.212 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:19:15 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

J. NEVILLE BIRDSALL

72

beforeit and the Pseudo-Ephraimafter.It is in the mind of Ephraimtoo forhe givesTargumicexplanationsoftheitemsin the
althoughhe does not quote the passage
vineyard'sconstruction
worksan explanaofIsaiah verbatim
32). Even forthetwoArmenian
tion of the gospel formwithormcannotbe based on derivation
fromthe Isaiah passage,since,althoughthe Armeniantranslation
of Isaiah v.2, its wordingis amrowteamb
expands the apocpxwoa~
and ormis not used.
parspeci (I enclosedit with a fortification)
from
Isaiah
is moreoverclosely
Pseudo-Ephraim'squotation
linkedwiththiswordingoftheArmenianBible33). In otherwords,
the wordingof the parable in Pseudo-Ephraimis not dependent
upon the textof Isaiah knownto thewriter,noris the wordingof
the ArmeniantranslationofEphraim'sCommentary,
but mustbe
antecedentto theseArmeniantranslations,
and alreadyimprinted
knownto theSyriacwriters.
uponthegospeltradition
In the Dialogue the verb AXopaixocof the Isaiah passage is
supplantedby the expansion4xos6pao -reXoq.This may suggest
thatbehindtheformoftheparablein the Diatessaronto whichthe
Armeniandocumentsbear witnessand the formin the Dialogue
therelay a divergentGreek text of Isaiah in which ZxCp0dcoaxc
had been expanded to 40xoa6~peoG
'raZXoq,perhaps under the
influenceof the similar-roXovof vs. 5. The manyquotationsfrom
Isaiah in whichthe Dialogueaboundsare oftentextuallydivergent
fromany otherknownforms:theydeservea close studyof their
own. Just as the gospel text in the Dialogue probablyreveals
texttradition,
areas of non-canonical
the Old Testamenttextin it
to
the
may provideanalogies
questionsraisedby the formofOld
Testamentquotationsin early Christianwirterssuch as Justin
and in the New Testamentitself.Perhapshoweverthislink with
Isaiah comesfroma particulartraditionofTestimoniaratherthan
froma versionofthetextas a whole.Thismaybe intimatedby the
fact that the only otherpoint where Pseudo-Ephraimand the
Dialogue coincidein an Isaianic quotation34) providesno coincidenceofvariant.In otherwords,correspondences
werelimitedto
alone.
particularpassages
text. arm. p. 233; interpret.p. 168, cp. Biblia polyglotta,
32) O.c., XVI.I9,
ed. B. WALTON, t. III. Esaias c. 5 Paraphrasis chaldaica: Alexander SPERBER,
The Bible in Aramaic, III. The Later Prophetsaccordingto TargumJonathan,

Leiden, 1962, p. 9.

o.c., pp. 126 f.: EGAN (C.S.C.O. 291) p. 33, (id. 292) p. 29.
Dialogue, p. 94: SCHAEFERS, p. 121. Isaiah xl 14-16.

33) SCHAEFERS,
34)

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.212 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:19:15 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE DIALOGUE OF TIMOTHY AND AQUILA

73

The passages we have discussedall have linkswith Ephraim:

thereare otherswhichhave no suchlinks.Such is thaton fol.133 r

6
(pg. Ioo): ocatro 6reo
xoateyvero
q'xoradoO
"oXLo
aupO6-,vroS
OciqxTI Eo pOOC
qvOTI4 XOC
Gx6-'o73M70aCv T-?vy]v 0=r6 6p
7roiXLV
ykvsvro
cpJq.This is composedof Lk. xxiii45 (as in all textsother

than the Alexandrian),Matt. xxvii 45, with the additionof the

returnof the sun, a featurenot knownin the canonicaltradition,
oftheGospelofPeter,sect.22 "thenthesun shone
but reminiscent
and it was foundto be the ninthhour"
35)
xhie0 L
('60s
lOo~4o
~
o e
) 36). On fol. II2r (pg. 87) is a highlycomplex
eSp Cp
thereactionofdemonsto Jesus.n&y&prvsE~?aoc
passageconcerning
SV
0
Loov
x-0poU3
s
aS TS( ~xpocov0- u- Toi

oTA&
aXveaocL
P&CCO
rpb
Matt.
CONYBEARE
.
xiii 29 as
gives
0soi

the reference,which is justifiedby the "torment"phrase: "I

as "Son of
knowthee" howeveris Mk. i.24 or Lk. 4.34: confession
God" is Mk. iii II or Lk. iv 41. co belongsto Luke iv 34, although
it occursas a variantin the parallelMk. i 24: "son of David" is
borrowedfromBartimaeusor the parallel incidents:while the
unknown.
additionof0s64to theconfession
is apparentlyelsewhere
CONYBEARE 37), basing himselfof TISCHENDORF, says that Eusebius, Tertullianand the Old Latin have "nearlythe same formof
thatEusebius
citation":sincehe quotesTISCHENDORF as remarking
"Varia miscet",he is usingthe apparatusto Lk. iv 34. Fromthis
to the Fathersand the Old Latin is an
we see that the reference
exaggeration,since only Eusebius includesthe words properto
Matt. viii 29, and thisin two out of fourcases only38). This may
be significant:
yetno othercloselinkswithEusebiushave revealed
themselves.Neitherthe Diatessarictraditionsnorotherquotations
showthiscloselysummarizedtypeofharmonization.
Lastly,there
to theclosingwordsoftheMatthaeangenealogy
are threereferences
(Matt.i. 16): fol.93r(pg.76), fol.93v (ibid.) and fol.II3r (pg. 88).
35) O.c., pp. 260 f.

36) The reappearance of the sun proves to be foundin Ephraem, on closer

perusal, namely Commentaryon the ConcordantGospel XXI.5 (Syriac text
as in footnote8 above: Armenianversionas in footnote16, p. 315 line 2 of

the text, and p. 224 1. 32 of LELOIR's Latin rendering). The passage given

by CONYBEAREin his introduction(o.c., p. xxiv), in English rendering,in

fact shows this: LELOIR howevermakes no commentin his various studies.
37) O.c., Prolegomena p. xxv.
38)

Referencesof Eusebius to Lk. iv 34 are to be foundin his commentary

on the Psalms, in MIGNE, Patrologia Graeca, t. 23, coll. 564, 1073, 1157: t. 24

col. 76.

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.212 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:19:15 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

74

J. NEVILLE BIRDSALL

No one oftheseagreesexactlywiththeformsknownin themanuscriptsofthe gospels.The last namedis foundat theconclusionof

the quotationof the whole genealogy,in whichvery few other
It runs axcop
variationsare foundand none of greatsignificance.
i
e eyevvyasvTOvLCa07cp
-rv ivyjarsuaM[Lvov
ocapotat? qysvvyiOe 6
X- uS--ou 0U.The othersare quoted earlierin the Dialogue one
againstthe otheras variantforms,the former
by the Jewspecifically as comingfromMatthew,the latter in refutationby the
Christian
at thecloseofa summaryquotationofthewholegenealo-

gy: they run as follows (a)

x&op ,iyvvyaev v ~iO~Ocp v avapoa

p10
p y6vvjaev '7v tv
Laq e
q xci
)ysvv-e Lq 0 Xsy6o y?
0 6yoS
3rept O? Vi"V
17VXEY6,sVO3V
EXv
7x 1?q ApeL (b)
)(V
yevv
cpyoav

The variantsin the passage above and in (b) are relatively

Z-.
but the generationof Jesus by Josephwhichthe
insignificant:
passage (a) apparentlyattests as the readingof the Gospel of
Matthewis in strikingconflictwiththe formof Matt.i 16 in most
sources.However,therein Syriacevidencein the SinaiticSyriac
palimpsestand it is clear that this was morewidelyspreadthan
its attestationby that singlemanuscriptmightsuggestsinceit is
referredto by the twelfthcenturycommentatorDionysiosbarSalibi. The readingof these Syriacsourcesand the materialhere
underreviewwerediscussedby F. C. BURKITT 39): in respectofthe
Dialogue's quotation (a) he considersthat we have no citation,
but the "inference
ofthespeaker".In respectofthe readingofthe
SinaiticSyriac,he considersit to be derivedfroma misunderstanding of the readingknownin Greeksourcesonly in the Ferrar
-v ro~cp a
group which runs thus: cxop& eyivv'~vav
Vreu.4
L ?t svv-?asv 'I-?aoiv TOv XSyoQ?tvov
OZaot 7o(pOvoSq
XPLa6ov.
io
This reading,as he observes,"is also impliedby the variousforms
of the Old Latin and by the text whichunderliesthe extantAr-

menian version". At the beginningof his discussion,he acknowledges that "the textualproblemsinvolvedin Matt.i 16 are exceed-

inglycomplexand I cannotclaimto have arrivedat a solutionthat

satisfiesall the elementsof the puzzle". In discussingthe reading
ofthe Dialogueherein question,it wouldbe premature
to attempt
to do what BURKITT could not: but a few commentsare necessary
if we are to assess the significance
of the passagein respectof the
39) Evangelion da-Mepharreshe,ed. F. CrawfordBURKITT, Cambridge,
1904, vol. II, Introductionand Notes, pp. 258-266.

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.212 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:19:15 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE DIALOGUE OF TIMOTHY AND AQUILA

75

gospel text lyingbehindthe Dialogue's usage. BURKITTdoes not

discuss the Latin evidence except to suggest that the Syriac
manuscriptand the codex Bobbiensis either share a common
or derivetheirreadingfromthe Diatessaron:but the
corruption,
of
he does notinvestigate.
It mayhoweverbe
the
origin
corruption
of
that
the
these
two
ancient sources40) is
reading
suggested
derivedfroma text whichwe may reconstruct
fromthe Ferrar
~
this
will
rov
read
cp i4
group:
~cxcxp
009, o0n
y,vvI~av
The
second
been
omitted
has
~ao0ov.
acoycp
aTS0u Cpi ~y6vvjaSv
or by haplography:theaoristpassiveverbhas
eitherintentionally
been changedintoa participle:and 7ap00voq
has been added. I am
inclinedto agreewithBurkittthatthegeneraltenourofthegenealogy,and thestyleoftherestofit,makeit unlikelythatthisis the
originaltext of the gospel.Rather,in the lightof the Dialogue,it
is plausiblethatwe have bothin the Greekwe have reconstructed,
and in the Dialogue,formsof textin whicha readingof Ebionite
Tendenzhas becomeconflatedwiththecanonicaltext: thistendentiousreadingmayhave comefromsome"Hebrewgospel"or other,
but to assignit to any ofwhichwe knowby nameor shortexcerpt
wouldbe purelyconjectural.This suggestion
maylead us on to the
finalconclusionofthisexamination.
We have in thegospelquotationsin the DialogueofTimothyand
whichwe meetin theharmonistic
traditions
Aquila a phenomenon
ofthegospels,and whichis to be seenveryclearlyin thetraditions
oftheDiatessaronas wemaysee thisin thecommentary
ofEphraim
is not derived
upon the ConcordantGospel: but thisphenomenon
fromthe Diatessaron,as we may see fromthose readingsand
expansionswhich are knownin the gospel of Peter but not in
Ephraim.Thereare also readingssuch as that about the demons'
of whicha close parallelis not to be found:and others
confession,
such as that we have just discussed,of whichwe can see traces
elsewhere,but of whose originalformand sourcewe can achieve
no absolute certainty.The readingreZXoq
in the parable of the
in
both
its
and
its
Vineyard
Ephraimic
Dialogue formindicates
too that this traditionapparentlyincluded some refurbished
Testimonia.The sourceof thesereadingsand expansions,whether
40) The Sinaitic Syriac reads (BURKITT's
rendering)"Joseph to whom
was betrothed Mary the virgin,begat Jesus that is called the Messiah":
the codex Bobbiensis reads "Iosef cui desponsata virgoMaria genuit Iesum
Christum."

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.212 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:19:15 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

76

J. NEVILLE BIRDSALL

oruniqueto the Dialogue,is probasharedwithotherdocuments,

bly to be foundin that "early Christianoral tradition"of which
A. F. J. KLIJN has written very convincingly41), a tradition

compreservedat its strongestin "very old Jewish-Christian

munities".That the Dialogue shouldpreservesuchmaterialin the
betweenJew and Christianis
contextof debate and controversy
and suggeststhattheearlydatingofthe Dialogue
veryinteresting,
proposedby LukynWilliamsmaywellbe right:or at anyratethat
someancestralformofthe presentdialoguegoesback to an earlier
timethanthefourthcenturyorlaterforwhichmostscholarsoptin
writingofthe Dialogue.The presentdiscussionhas beenlimitedto
the gospel quotationsand cannotclaim to have done morethan
to adumbrateby thisapproacha possibleway to a finalsolutionof
the question.A fullsolutionwouldinvolvefirstly,
a fullcodicoloof
and
of
and
textual
the
its
attestation:a
gical
study
Dialogue
of
Old
Testament
and
of
withtradiits
material:
its
links
study
on
tions variousmattersknownto Epiphaniusand to the compiler
of the ChroniconPaschale: and finallya carefulanalysisof the
of the writer(and of his
place occupiedby the presuppositions
in the historyof doctrine.It is a fassourceif thishad different)
cinatingcornerofearlyChristianliteraryproduction:it is remarkable thatno onehas lookedintoit as closelyas it probablydeserves.
The presentwriterhopes that his suggestions
may stimulatesuch
an investigation.
Appendix
Dialogue of Timothyand Aquila (ed. Conybearepp. 93f.) comparedwith

the canonical synoptic gospels (Mt. xxi 33-41: Mk. xii 1-9: Lk. xx 9-16)
TOTS
L
al.
osine

'rV 7rpo0CP0v
7',Ju'v
o
'Te

S 7rpo~lxV
aaao
?v,7p
A.syov
avOpc~rnoa'L es(u'ruasv MMTCAOVO

Xa rupyov
xat oxo&ovqaco aUrco'estyXoq

xoL ExoL7iaevev auvo Xyvovxoa

J7xoI7VLov

xra sesxoro u'rovyecopyoq

xaC axes8yVa
xoa sysveo

Lk.

sine al.
hoc ordine: vocabulo nLs inclusoLk. (TR); Mk. (W O fI3 al.)
nupyov-Mt. & Mk.; sed
cxo8o%naev

post A;vov/uro0XvWov
(Mt.): uxroxexovasvsineal.: Ayvov
VtoV (Mk.)

omnes
tantum-Mt.
sine al.

& Mk.

41) O.c., p. 67.

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.212 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:19:15 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

77

THE DIALOGUE OF TIMOTHY AND AQUILA

eV

xaOCLP)'my

',

XOCpx7r(v

xocapo-Mk.:

ev

xaiop

Lk.

(CQ al. pc. cp. ARI'AII al.): o xmtpoS

TcOyxapTov - Mt.
omnes.

asoa'sXv

o xup~oSq oU
cOvoq
a'Co
'ouq ouxouq
auo'ou

hoc in loco sine al. (sed vide infra)

Mt.

aTco yVxoCpxOv

Mk. (sed rou precoEvoq

addit)

Mt. (Mk. wo ... .Xoc)

?xoELv

Mt.
8ou)ouq
80xouq
exsLvouq
zouq
ocu'rou)
(7ouq
OLas yeOPYot

Lk.
Mt. (1?3ovres OL
y(opyoL)

ToCovOes
ov sv
V u pLav
ov 8Se epOCV
XOC
xevouS
LraTeLChV
o 8s
q
xTou
OCeXCOvoq
ExaLvoU

sine al. (cp. Mt. 22.6)

Mt./Mk. (sed primo loco)
Mk. (sed xevov) cp. Lk. (Eaocn-)

hoc in loco sine al. (sed vide supra et

infra)
Mt.
sine al. (Mt. --aocuroS)
cp. Mk./Lk. xoxeLov
- Mk.
epautaorCoaV cp. Lk.
cp. Lk.
uagTSpOv8E - Mt. (UaTSpOV ES 7rCVTCV
- Mt. xx 27 cp. Lk. xx 32 T.R.)

oouS
0u
ocraTsL?,evaocouS
ootoS S8
xocxLvouS
OV eLeV7XrLVOCV
aTEXnexTesvav
ov 8S evpoauatoLaV

XOCLaa'relaV XOCL
au'ouS xEvouS
uaTSpov8S rOCVTV

Mt.
Mk. -ayaxocov; Lk. Tov gyToctrov
cp.
Mt. Lvt (e a b c ffl ff2h)"unicum",
(f) "unigenitum".

Ou'ou
Cra'rlscaV TOVULOV

'Tov ovoyevw

heyOv evrpxaovatl 'ov

OL ~s ycOpyOLL8aoV'e
ocurov

ulov

Mt.: Mk. (LNWA

I 33 al. mu.)
Mt.
Lk.
cp. Mk. (9 f 13 al.) Osocaoc?evoLocuov
spogtevov
Mt. (+ ev sa'vov ); Mk. (praem.Tpoq

ou

spXotLeov
sL7rV

ouroq eartv ah0yco o

cauTouq)
omnes sed sine oc)0qcoS (cp. Jn. iv
42; vi 14; vii 26; vii 40)
Mt. Mk. Lk. (TR)
Mk. Lk. (C f I) sed ordo versionum

xhypovotoS

SVTUe Xox'reLVCOtLV
7Lov

xat saTe

-q xxypovotuoc
x0" ee
;cov ocVuovs 'co

XOCL 7SXCTLVOCV

o'r av ouv e;0

'oU

syrarum
omnes

'

7Teecovo

Mk. (f 13 al.) = ordo Mt./Lk.

o xq

pCLAcovoq t7LOl~oasL

Tot ysecpyotsexetouq
xocxouq xcaxcoqOoeast
acurouq
xaL 8oast mov apsexcova aOCXXg
ysopyoiS

Mt.
Mk. Lk.
Mt. (ahloL yecopyoLq)

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.212 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:19:15 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions