The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila and the Early Harmonistic Traditions

The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila and the Early Harmonistic TraditionsAuthor(s): J. Neville BirdsallSource: Novum Testamentum, Vol. 22, Fasc. 1 (Jan., 1980), pp. 66-77Published by: BRILLStable 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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

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 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560531?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


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 Timothy and Aquila was first published by F. C. CONYBEARE 1) in 1898 and since then has received scant attention from students of early Christian literature. Apart from short articles by GOODSPEED 2) and TAMILIA 3), who are both concerned solely with codicological and textual data, there has been little reference to it and less discussion 4). LUKYN WILLIAMS dealt with it in his study of anti-Jewish polemic (Adversus Judae- os) 5) and wishes to date it in the second century whereas most others treat it as of late fourth century provenance, as does JAMES PARKES, for instance, in "The Conflict of Church and Synagogue"6). The present paper limits itself to the investigation of those passages which bear upon synoptic material in the Dialogue, one of which takes us also into the form of one quotation from the Old Testa- ment: perhaps it may stimulate the new edition and fuller study which this intriguing document requires.

Conybeare discussed a number of the gospel citations of the Dialogue without reaching any definite conclusion: he notes a number of affinities with the traditions which later provided charac-

1) The Dialogues of Athanasius and Zacchaeus, and of Timothy and Aquila, edited by Fred. C. CONYBEARE M.A., in Anecdota Oxoniensia, Classical Series Part viii, Oxford 1898.

2) Edgar J. GOODSPEED, "The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila: two unpublished manuscripts," 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?tudes Arminiennes, T.VI (1926) pp. 185-328, s.n. 125 (pp. 244 ff.).

5) Adversus Judaeos. A Bird's-eye view of Christian Apologiae 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 Schriftstellern der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, Berlin 1966, pp. io and 163.



THE DIALOGUE OF TIMOTHY AND AQUILA 67

teristic readings of the Diatessaron tradition, others which he would link the Gospel of Peter, and writes as if both these groups of readings showed traces of a gospel antecedent to the canonical tradition 7). He also discerns an adoptionist christology and thus postulates an early date for the source of these features.

We shall particularly concentrate upon those passages which show links with the harmonistic tradition best seen in the various forms of the Diatessaron: the impression gained from these may well be confirmed in the other passages. We follow the order of the folia of Vat gr. Pii PP. II as given by Conybeare, giving also the page reference of his edition.

Fol. I133v (pg. IoI) TO x0racctcca0ce To vaoC~ axaoN tAov '&

rXk. The derivation of this is Lk. xxiii 45 (influenced in word order by Matt. xxvii 51a): moving of the mountains (where Matt. loc. cit. has earthquake): Matt. xxvii 5Ib (with v.1. sppoanavcv 1. saoXLy- acxv), 52 (followed by a midrashic expansion of the resurrection of the saints with reference to the harrowing of Hell). The midrash is unattested 8) but the introduction of the shaken mountains is known in two places within the Diatessaric tradition, widely separated in time and space. These are, firstly, in Ephraim's Commentary on the Concordant Gospel 9): "Et montes commoti sunt, et sepulcra aperta sunt, et velum scissum est" 10): secondly, the Old Saxon Heliand 11. 5662-5665 erda biboda/hrisidun thia hohun bergos harda stenos cludun/ felisos after them felde endi that feha lacan tebrast/ an middion an tue 11) (in Scott's rendering

7) O.c. Prolegomena, pp. xii-xxv. 8) CONYBEARE was evidently puzzled by this as he wrote that it "must be

taken from some ancient apocryph" (op.cit., p. xxiv). We still cannot identify this, but since the writing of this paper it has been found that a very similar account is known in 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 attention to a further similar account in the Gospel of Nicodemus (Evangelia 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 further affinity.

9) Saint Ephrem. Commentaire de l'Evangile Concordant ..., E~dit6 et Traduit par Dom Louis LELOIR in Chester Beatty Monographs no. 8, Dublin 1963, XXI.5 (p. 21o).

10) Ibid., p. 211. 11) Heliand und Genesis, herausgegeben von Otto BEHAGEL, 8. Auflage ...

von Walther MITZKA (Tiibingen 1965), p. 195.



68 J. NEVILLE BIRDSALL

"the earth did tremble/ and the high mountains shook and the hard stone split open/ the crags on the fields; and the fair curtain was rent/ was torn in two down the middle") 12). The exact relation- ship of Heliand to the Diatessaric tradition, much controverted lately 13), is not in point here: neither that poem, nor the text known to Ephraim, are exactly identical with the Dialogue: but both show an item not known in the canonical tradition associated with the portents attendant upon the death of Christ. Fol. 135v. (pg. io2) =5,o 5-ocVtOv-Cr &opOx6O4 a06v-e ot ouACorL x64cv-o

xoQ7,bv pivY,. This summary statement agrees in content with the

additions to Lk. xxiii 48 in Lvt (gI): revertebantur dicentes vae nobis quae facta sunt hodiae propter peccata nostra appropinqua- vit enim desolatio hierusalem 14): Syr sin cur, "they... were beating on their breasts and saying: Woe to us! what hath befallen us? woe to us from our sins" 15): and Gospel of Peter sect 25 ("6-s o' LouAc0oL xoc~ o0 'tpo3P6UEpoL xOC01 oL EpZq yv6v4ES otov xOcxyV UL coS noi~a~v i4p~ocV-oo x6xaoro xodv X&YtLv ou?' tgOCL L4

?yyLa~v xpu xoct To, -IXoq 'epoucXch~I) 16). This was known to Ephraim from the concordant Gospel 17): et cum obtenebrati essent oculi eorum ecce illuminata est paululum mens eorum Vae erat vae erat nobis aiunt, filius erat hic dei ecce venerunt advenerunt iudicia dirutionis Ierusalem (xx. 28). Here once more, the re- spective traditions, while not verbally identical, are evidently related and rest upon some common basis. In a reference to the crucifixion scene, (fol. 136v: pg. 103), we have mention of mingled vinegar and gall, which has already been referred to in the Dia- logue (Fol. 87r: pg. 72) in a list of testimonia. In the context of

12) The Heliand, translated from the 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 chief contributions are referred to by A. F. J. KLIJN. A Survey of the Researches into the Western Text of the Gospels and Acts Part Two 1949-z969, in Supplements to 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.

14) Novum Testamentum Domini Nostri Iesu Christi latine. Pars Prior. Quattuor Evangelia. Oxonii, 1889-1898. Evangelium sec. Lucam ad loc.

16) Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, vol. I, Text, Cambridge 1904, pp. 412, 413. 16) L'Evangile de Pierre, par LEON VAGANAY (Paris 1930), pp. 268-271. 17) Saint Ephrem Commentaire de L'Evangile Concordant, Version Arm&-

nienne, 6dit6e par Louis LELOIR (C.S.C.O. 137, Louvain 1953) PP. 30oo, 301: ID., Version Arm6nienne, traduite par Louis LELOIR (C.S.C.O. 145, Louvain 1954) P. 215. (The Syriac is not extant).




the Dialogue it follows the Johannine &46 (Jn. xix 28), as does a reference in an Ephraimic passage not explicitly related to the Concordant Gospel, viz. no. 817 in Leloir's repertorium of Ephraim's quotations from the gospels 18): this is found also in the Persian Diatessaron 19) and we may further compare the text of Lvt (c) at Jn. xix 29 "hysopo admiscentes spongiam ergo plenam aceto cum felle permixtum componentes obtulerunt ori eius" 20). The phrase is ultimately dependent upon Ps. 69.21 and is linked with the earlier draught of Matt. xxvii 34: without the &4/C which sets it in a Johannine context it is found in Ephraim's commentary: XX. 27: "dederunt ei acetum et fel" following the promise to the penitent thief. The text of the Dialogue shows links with other sources than the Johannine: xpe?toL'evoq is derived from Acts v 30 while x-aca-Es is related to the Matthaean rXaoc; of xxvii 48.

The longest and most complex reference to the gospel material is found on fol. I2Iv, I22r (pg. 93, 94). It is discussed by CONY- BEARE,21) who points out the remarkable illogicality of the argu- ment at this point of the Dialogue. The Jew asks what Jesus said in his trial, adverting to his silence before Pilate: the Christian gives many prophecies of judgement, heedless of the fact that the Jew can assert with correctness that Jesus said none of these during his trial. The parable of the vineyard and the murderous vinedres- sers is then introduced, in the context of the triumphal entry: and finally, the word "Behold your house is left desolate" is quoted as the only word spoken by Jesus while on trial. This seems to suggest that the immediate source of the gospel material in the Dialogue must have been other than the canonical gospels, since neither contextual observation is correct. For CONYBEARE, the link of the parable with the triumphal entry clearly demonstrates that the source is not the Diatessaron 22), since the Arabic Diatessaron has the parable in its thirty-third section, whereas the entry is later in the thirty-ninth; and the same relative sequence is found in E- phraem. It should be noted, however, that in the Western harmony tradition the two pericopae are found in their Matthaean sequence,

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). 20) Evangelium Colbertinum, herausgegeben ... von H. J. VOGELS, I.

Text, Bonn 1953, p. 163. 21) O.c., Prolegomena, pp. xii-xvii. 22) O.c., p. xix.




and thus the parable is linked, although not directly, with the preceding entry scene. Nevertheless, there are several features in the description of the children's reception of Jesus which are unknown to the canonical tradition and to the harmony tradition alike; the phrase o

T ena q-ov rppa~ov, the verb

?x6xXoocxv, the description of the cry of

Hosanna as xa?r?aprpupouo-v.

The first phrase meets us, as CONY- BEARE notes 23), in the Acta Pilati, where the children's cry is an item reported in the Jewish authorities' deposition against Jesus 24).

The passage is clearly harmonized: a breakdown phrase by phrase 25) shows a closer link with Matthew than with Luke or Mark, although it is not lacking in elements from those sources. A closely Matthaean feature is the sending of two groups of messengers before the final sending of the only son. Yet a number of elements in the canonical tradition are absent: 'XL0oof6Xrcav (Matt. xxi 35), ixscpoXccv, rlacraov (Mk. xii 4) find no echo while ppLavocv too has no place here in the canonical text although it has links with the similar features of Matt. xxii 6 where messengers are abused. Occasionally single words, and more often specific concatenations of words find no parallel at all in the canonical tradition. Now while short interpretative additions are characteristic of the Diatessaron, its main streams both Eastern and Western follow the canonical wording more closely than we find in the Dialogue. The Persian Diatessaron does indeed give an expansion of this parable 26), but we find there three groups variously treated, including being sawn asunder, the Isaianic manner of martyrdom. It would seem clear that Conybeare was correct in his rejection of a Diatessaric origin for this form of the parable.

Yet as in the cases which we have already noted, there are some Ephraimic links: the vinegrowers see the Son "coming", a reading known in Mark, in some Greek mss. (including the chief mss. of the so-called Caesarean group), in the Harklean Syriac with asterisk, and in the Armenian and Georgian versions. It was apparently in Ephraim's gospel text (XVI.i9: cp. XXI.I8) 27): but

23) O.c., p. xvi. 24) Acta Pilati, ed. C. TISCHENDORF in Evangelia Apocrypha, Leipzig

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

vidissent illi Filium quod veniebat") ("cum appropinquasset"), 231 cp. veritatem syram (not. 8 supra) pp. 220, 221 ("ex quo appropinquaverat").




there seems to be no other evidence for it in the Diatessaric tradition. It was evidently an old text, owing something perhaps to a typological link with Joseph, whom Aphrahat associates with the Son in this parable 28). A further link may be seen in the same section in the form of words "the inheritance shall be ours" 29): this is Markan and Lukan, and is known in some Syriac texts of Matthew. Its presence in Ephraim or the Diatessaron however might be due to the exigences of Syriac idiom.

The most striking link with Ephraim however takes us, as we shall see, beyond the gospel text into the region of the use of the prophets in the early church. The Dialogue substitutes for the cppacy?tv of the canonical text, reyZoq, which is otherwise unattested. In one ms. of Ephraim in the Armenian version 30) (the Syriac not being extant at this point) the word orm (wall) with plural number, is used in place of cang (fence) found in the other ms. LELOIR

gives the reading only in a footnote, since he follows the other ms.: but we should probably accept the lectionem insolitam as the original text, since (a) cang is the wording of the Armenian Vulgate of Matthew and Mark, and accommodation may have taken place, and (b) the reading ormovk' (with walls) is known elsewhere in the Armenian area. This is in the Pseudo-Ephraimic work The Inter- pretation of the Gospel 31) where the relevant words of the parable are quoted as ormovk' parspeac ew parspovk' amracoyc zna (he enclosed it with walls and surrounded it with strong walls). SCHAE- FERS, who edited a commented translation argued for a Syriac original of the work and for the links of its gospel text with the Diatessaron, a hypothesis widely accepted although the Syriac original has not come to light. The text of the Dialogue unlinked as it is with the Diatessaron, may suggest that there was a Greek form with reLZoq (whether in a form of the canonical text or in an un- canonical source) which underlies both the readings of the E- phraimic tradition, and the reading of the Dialogue.

Both the Dialogue and the Pseudo-Ephraimic Interpretation quote Isaiah v in close proximity to the parable, the Dialogue

28) Demonstratio XXI.9, in Patrologia syriaca I, Paris, 1894, coll. 953, 954. 29) Ephraem, loc. cit. 80) Ibid. (text. arm. p. 233 fn. 15). 31) J. SCHAEFERS, "Eine altsyrische antimarkionitische Erklirung von

Parabeln des Herrn," in Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen VI.I-2, 1917, P- 173: recently reedited 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.




before it and the Pseudo-Ephraim after. It is in the mind of E- phraim too for he gives Targumic explanations of the items in the vineyard's construction although he does not quote the passage of Isaiah verbatim 32). Even for the two Armenian works an explana- tion of the gospel form with orm cannot be based on derivation from the Isaiah passage, since, although the Armenian translation expands the apocpxwoa~ of Isaiah v.2, its wording is amrowteamb parspeci (I enclosed it with a fortification) and orm is not used. Pseudo-Ephraim's quotation from Isaiah is moreover closely linked with this wording of the Armenian Bible 33). In other words, the wording of the parable in Pseudo-Ephraim is not dependent upon the text of Isaiah known to the writer, nor is the wording of the Armenian translation of Ephraim's Commentary, but must be antecedent to these Armenian translations, and already imprinted upon the gospel tradition known to the Syriac writers.

In the Dialogue the verb AXopaixoc of the Isaiah passage is supplanted by the expansion 4xos6pao -reXoq. This may suggest that behind the form of the parable in the Diatessaron to which the Armenian documents bear witness and the form in the Dialogue there lay a divergent Greek text of Isaiah in which ZxCp0dcoaxc had been expanded to 40xoa6~peoG 'raZXoq, perhaps under the influence of the similar -roXov of vs. 5. The many quotations from Isaiah in which the Dialogue abounds are often textually divergent from any other known forms: they deserve a close study of their own. Just as the gospel text in the Dialogue probably reveals areas of non-canonical text tradition, the Old Testament text in it may provide analogies to the questions raised by the form of Old Testament quotations in early Christian wirters such as Justin and in the New Testament itself. Perhaps however this link with Isaiah comes from a particular tradition of Testimonia rather than from a version of the text as a whole. This may be intimated by the fact that the only other point where Pseudo-Ephraim and the Dialogue coincide in an Isaianic quotation 34) provides no coin- cidence of variant. In other words, correspondences were limited to particular passages alone.

32) O.c., XVI.I9, text. arm. p. 233; interpret. p. 168, cp. Biblia polyglotta, ed. B. WALTON, t. III. Esaias c. 5 Paraphrasis chaldaica: Alexander SPERBER, The Bible in Aramaic, III. The Later Prophets according to Targum Jonathan, Leiden, 1962, p. 9.

33) SCHAEFERS, o.c., pp. 126 f.: EGAN (C.S.C.O. 291) p. 33, (id. 292) p. 29. 34) Dialogue, p. 94: SCHAEFERS, p. 121. Isaiah xl 14-16.




The passages we have discussed all have links with Ephraim: there are others which have no such links. Such is that on fol. 133 r (pg. Ioo): ocatro 6 reo aupO6-,vroS

6 "oXLo q'xoradoO xoat eyvero

Gx6-'o7 3 M70aCv T-?v y]v 0=r6 6p Oc iqxTI Eo pOOC qvOTI4 XOC 7roiXLV ykvsvro cpJq. This is composed of Lk. xxiii 45 (as in all texts other than the Alexandrian), Matt. xxvii 45, with the addition of the return of the sun, a feature not known in the canonical tradition, but reminiscent of the Gospel of Peter, sect. 22 "then the sun shone and it was found to be the ninth hour" 35) ('60s lOo~4o xhie0 L eSp ~ Cp o e ) 36). On fol. II2r (pg. 87) is a highly complex passage concerning the reaction of demons to Jesus. n& y&p rvsE~?aoc

S- V 0 Loov rpb x-0poU3 aXveaocL P&CCO oTA&

aS TS( s ~xpocov 0- u- Toi 0soi . CONYBEARE gives Matt. xiii 29 as the reference, which is justified by the "torment" phrase: "I know thee" however is Mk. i.24 or Lk. 4.34: confession as "Son of God" is Mk. iii II or Lk. iv 41. co belongs to Luke iv 34, although it occurs as a variant in the parallel Mk. i 24: "son of David" is borrowed from Bartimaeus or the parallel incidents: while the addition of 0s64 to the confession is apparently elsewhere unknown. CONYBEARE 37), basing himself of TISCHENDORF, says that Euse- bius, Tertullian and the Old Latin have "nearly the same form of citation": since he quotes TISCHENDORF as remarking that Eusebius "Varia miscet", he is using the apparatus to Lk. iv 34. From this we see that the reference to the Fathers and the Old Latin is an exaggeration, since only Eusebius includes the words proper to Matt. viii 29, and this in two out of four cases only 38). This may be significant: yet no other close links with Eusebius have revealed themselves. Neither the Diatessaric traditions nor other quotations show this closely summarized type of harmonization. Lastly, there are three references to the closing words of the Matthaean genealogy (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 found in Ephraem, on closer

perusal, namely Commentary on the Concordant Gospel XXI.5 (Syriac text as in footnote 8 above: Armenian version as in footnote 16, p. 315 line 2 of the text, and p. 224 1. 32 of LELOIR's Latin rendering). The passage given by CONYBEARE in his introduction (o.c., p. xxiv), in English rendering, in fact shows this: LELOIR however makes no comment in his various studies.

37) O.c., Prolegomena p. xxv. 38) References of Eusebius to Lk. iv 34 are to be found in his commentary

on the Psalms, in MIGNE, Patrologia Graeca, t. 23, coll. 564, 1073, 1157: t. 24 col. 76.




No one of these agrees exactly with the forms known in the manuscripts of the gospels. The last named is found at the conclusion of the quotation of the whole genealogy, in which very few other variations are found and none of great significance. It runs axcop e eyevvyasv TOv LCa07cp -rv ivyjarsuaM[Lvov ocapotat

i ? qysvvyiOe 6

X- - uS- ou 0U. The others are quoted earlier in the Dialogue one against the other as variant forms, the former by the Jew specifi- cally as coming from Matthew, the latter in refutation by the Christian at the close of a summary quotation of the whole genealogy: they run as follows (a) x&op ,iyvvyaev

v ~iO~Ocp v avapoa p10 Laq e )ysvv-e Lq 0 q Xsy6o y? xci p y6vvjaev '7v tv

17V XEY6, sVO3V )(V 3rept O? Vi"V 0 6yoS cpyoav yevv EXv 7x 1? q ApeL (b)

Z-. The variants in the passage above and in (b) are relatively insignificant: but the generation of Jesus by Joseph which the passage (a) apparently attests as the reading of the Gospel of Matthew is in striking conflict with the form of Matt. i 16 in most sources. However, there in Syriac evidence in the Sinaitic Syriac palimpsest and it is clear that this was more widely spread than its attestation by that single manuscript might suggest since it is referred to by the twelfth century commentator Dionysios bar- Salibi. The reading of these Syriac sources and the material here under review were discussed by F. C. BURKITT 39): in respect of the Dialogue's quotation (a) he considers that we have no citation, but the "inference of the speaker". In respect of the reading of the Sinaitic Syriac, he considers it to be derived from a misunderstan- ding of the reading known in Greek sources only in the Ferrar group which runs thus: xop c & eyivv'~vav -v ro~cp a Vreu.- OZaot 7o(pOvoS

q L ?t 4 io svv-?asv 'I-?aoiv TOv XSyoQ?tvov XPLa6ov.

This reading, as he observes, "is also implied by the various forms of the Old Latin and by the text which underlies the extant Ar- menian version". At the beginning of his discussion, he acknowled- ges that "the textual problems involved in Matt. i 16 are exceed- ingly complex and I cannot claim to have arrived at a solution that satisfies all the elements of the puzzle". In discussing the reading of the Dialogue here in question, it would be premature to attempt to do what BURKITT could not: but a few comments are necessary if we are to assess the significance of the passage in respect of the

39) Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, ed. F. Crawford BURKITT, Cambridge, 1904, vol. II, Introduction and Notes, pp. 258-266.




gospel text lying behind the Dialogue's usage. BURKITT does not discuss the Latin evidence except to suggest that the Syriac manuscript and the codex Bobbiensis either share a common corruption, or derive their reading from the Diatessaron: but the origin of the corruption he does not investigate. It may however be suggested that the reading of these two ancient sources 40) is derived from a text which we may reconstruct from the Ferrar group: this will read ~cxcxp ~

y,vvI~av rov 009, o0n cp i4 -

aTS0u Cpi ~y6vvjaSv ~ao0ov. The second acoycp has been omitted either intentionally or by haplography: the aorist passive verb has been changed into a participle: and 7ap00voq has been added. I am inclined to agree with Burkitt that the general tenour of the genealogy, and the style of the rest of it, make it unlikely that this is the original text of the gospel. Rather, in the light of the Dialogue, it is plausible that we have both in the Greek we have reconstructed, and in the Dialogue, forms of text in which a reading of Ebionite Tendenz has become conflated with the canonical text: this tenden- tious reading may have come from some "Hebrew gospel" or other, but to assign it to any of which we know by name or short excerpt would be purely conjectural. This suggestion may lead us on to the final conclusion of this examination.

We have in the gospel quotations in the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila a phenomenon which we meet in the harmonistic traditions of the gospels, and which is to be seen very clearly in the traditions of the Diatessaron as we may see this in the commentary of Ephraim upon the Concordant Gospel: but this phenomenon is not derived from the Diatessaron, as we may see from those readings and expansions which are known in the gospel of Peter but not in Ephraim. There are also readings such as that about the demons' confession, of which a close parallel is not to be found: and others such as that we have just discussed, of which we can see traces elsewhere, but of whose original form and source we can achieve no absolute certainty. The reading reZXoq in the parable of the Vineyard in both its Ephraimic and its Dialogue form indicates too that this tradition apparently included some refurbished Testimonia. The source of these readings and 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 virgo Maria genuit Iesum Christum."




shared with other documents, or unique to the Dialogue, is probably to be found in that "early Christian oral tradition" of which A. F. J. KLIJN has written very convincingly 41), a tradition preserved at its strongest in "very old Jewish-Christian com- munities". That the Dialogue should preserve such material in the context of debate and controversy between Jew and Christian is very interesting, and suggests that the early dating of the Dialogue proposed by Lukyn Williams may well be right: or at any rate that some ancestral form of the present dialogue goes back to an earlier time than the fourth century or later for which most scholars opt in writing of the Dialogue. The present discussion has been limited to the gospel quotations and cannot claim to have done more than to adumbrate by this approach a possible way to a final solution of the question. A full solution would involve firstly, a full codicological and textual study of the Dialogue and of its attestation: a study of its Old Testament material: and of its links with traditions on various matters known to Epiphanius and to the compiler of the Chronicon Paschale: and finally a careful analysis of the place occupied by the presuppositions of the writer (and of his source if this had different) in the history of doctrine. It is a fas- cinating corner of early Christian literary production: it is remarkable that no one has looked into it as closely as it probably deserves. The present writer hopes that his suggestions may stimulate such an investigation.

Appendix

Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila (ed. Conybeare pp. 93f.) compared with the canonical synoptic gospels (Mt. xxi 33-41: Mk. xii 1-9: Lk. xx 9-16)

TOTS L osine al.

'rV 7rpo0CP0v 7',Ju'v Lk.

?v,7p o 'Te aaao S 7rpo~lxV

A.syov sine al.

avOpc~rnoa 'L e s(u'ruasv MMTCAOVO hoc ordine: vocabulo nLs incluso- Lk. (TR); Mk. (W O fI3 al.)

xat oxo&ovqaco aUrco 'estyXoq Xa rupyov cxo8o%naev nupyov-Mt. & Mk.; sed post A;vov/uro0XvWov

xoL ExoL7iaevev auvo Xyvov xoa exovasv sine al.: Ayvov (Mt.): uxrox- J7xoI7VLov VtoV (Mk.) xra sesxoro u'rov yecopyoq omnes xaC axes8yVa tantum-Mt. & Mk.

xoa sysveo sine al.

41) O.c., p. 67.




eV ', xaOCLP) 'my XOCpx7r(v

r xocapo-Mk.: ev r xaiop Lk. (CQ al. pc. cp. ARI'AII al.): o xmtpoS TcOy xapTov

- Mt.

asoa'sXv omnes.

o xup~oSq oU a'Co cOvoq hoc in loco sine al. (sed vide infra)

'ouq ouxouq auo'ou Mt.

?xoELv Mt. (Mk. wo ... .Xoc) aTco yV xoCpxOv Mk. (sed rou precoEvoq addit) OL as yeOPYot Lk.

ToC ovOes Mt. (1?3ovres OL

y(opyoL) zouq 8ou)ouq exsLvouq Mt. (7ouq 80xouq ocu'rou) ov sv V u pLav sine al. (cp. Mt. 22.6) ov 8S e epOCV Mt./Mk. (sed primo loco) XOC

LraTeLChV xevouS Mk. (sed xevov) cp. Lk. (Eaocn-)

o 8s q xTou OCeXCOvoq ExaLvoU hoc in loco sine al. (sed vide supra et infra)

ocraTsL?,ev aocouS 0u oouS Mt. ootoS S8 sine al. (Mt. - -aocuroS) xocxLvouS cp. Mk./Lk. xoxeLov OV eLeV7XrLVOCV aTEXnexTesvav - Mk. ov 8S evpoauatoLaV epautaorCoaV cp. Lk. XOCLa a'relaV XOCL au'ouS xEvouS cp. Lk. uaTSpov 8S rOCVTV uagTSpOv 8E - Mt. (UaTSpOV ES 7rCVTCV

- Mt. xx 27 cp. Lk. xx 32 T.R.) Cra'rlscaV TOV ULOV Ou'ou Mt. 'Tov ovoyevw Mk. -ayaxoc ov; Lk. Tov gyToctrov cp.

Mt. Lvt (e a b c ffl ff2h) "unicum", (f) "unigenitum".

heyOv evrpxaovatl 'ov ulov ou Mt.: Mk. (LNWA I 33 al. mu.) OL ~s ycOpyOL L8aoV'e Mt. ocurov Lk.

spXotLeov cp. Mk. (9 f 13 al.) Osocaoc?evo Locuov spogtevov

sL7rV Mt. (+ ev sa'vov ); Mk. (praem. Tpoq cauTouq)

ouroq eartv ah0yco o xhypovotoS

omnes sed sine oc)0qcoS (cp. Jn. iv 42; vi 14; vii 26; vii 40)

SVTUe Xox'reLVCOtLV Mt. Mk. Lk. (TR)

xat saTe 7Lov Mk. Lk. (C f I) sed ordo versionum

syrarum -q xxypovotuoc omnes x0" e e

;cov ocVuov s 'co u 7Teecovo

' Mk. (f 13 al.) = ordo Mt./Lk. XOCL 7SXCTLVOCV

o'r av ouv e;0 o xq 'oU pCLAcovoq t 7LOl~oasL Mt. Tot ysecpyots exetouq xocxouq xcaxcoq Ooeast acurouq xaL 8oast mov apsexcova aOCXXg Mk. Lk. ysopyoiS Mt. (ahloL yecopyoLq)



The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila and the Early Harmonistic Traditions

Documents

Transcript of The Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila and the Early Harmonistic Traditions