Gospel of Mark in Syriac Christianity (Prof. Gurtner)

Article

1. Christianity in Syriac-Speaking Communities
2. The origins of Syriac-speaking Christianity are vague. Much depends upon conjecture and inference, as historical sources are both scant and unreliable (Metzger, Early Versions, p. 5). What can be deduced, however, is typically drawn from two geographical vantage points: Edessa and Arbela. Edessa, today known as Urfa in modern Turkey (Kathleen E. εcVey, “Edessa,” in The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (D. N. Freedman, Ed.; New York: Doubleday, 1996), pp. 2.284–287), was the capital of an independent “buffer” state (Osrhoëne) between the Roman and the Parthian Empires (H.J.W. Drijvers, Cults and Beliefs at Edessa (δeidenμ Brill, 1λκ0), H.J.W. Drijvers, “The Persistence of Pagan Cults and Practices in Christian Syria,” in East of Byzantium: Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period (ed. N. G. Garsoian; T. F. Mathews, and R. W. Thomson ; Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 1982), pp. 35–43). Eusebius (ca. 304 C.E., H.E. 1.13.1–20) reports that Christianity came to that city when Thaddaeus, one of the original disciples of Jesus (Mark 3.18; Matt 10.3), was sent to Edessa by the apostle Thomas and influenced King Abgar Ukkama (“the Black”; d. ca 50 C.E.) to conversion (F.C. Burkitt, Early Eastern Christianity (London: J. Murray, 1904); W. Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in the Earliest Christianity (trans. R. Kraft et al. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), H.J.W. Drijvers, “Edessa und das jüdische Christentum,” VC 24 (1970): 4–33; J.B. Segal, “When Did Christianity Come to Edessaς” Pp. 1ιλ–9).

Another tradition suggests Thomas, rather than Thaddeaus, was the missionary to Edessa. G. Thomas may have originated in Edessa (Klijn, Edessa, pp. 64–83, 106–3κ, but cf. B. Ehlers, “Kann das Thomasevangelium aus Edessa stammen? ” NovT 12 (1970): 284–317). Ephrem Syrus alludes to a transfer and veneration of Thomas’ bones at Edessa (Ephrem Car. Nis. 27.62, 42.1.1–2.2, 49.9–40). Finally, Egeria came to the Syrian city (ca. 404–417) expressly to see the martyrdom of Thomas, whom she believed to be sent by Jesus to ‘Abgar (Itin. Eger. 17.1). Some texts suggest a degree of establishment and organization by the beginning of the third century. For example, texts such as the sixth-century Chronicle of Edessa (εcVey, “Edessa,” pp. 2.2κ4–287), in which church buildings are destroyed (Chronicle of Edessa, 86) (B. H. Cowper, ed. “Chronicle of Edessa,” Journal of Sacred Literature 5 (1864): 28–45).

1. The first bishop of Edessa, Qônâ (ca. 313), initiates the construction of a church buildings around the time of Constantine. Yet Walter Bauer (1934) contends that references to Christian buildings were later interpolations, and traditions regard Abgar are fictitious (Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in the Earliest Christianity). The other center of Syriac-speaking Christianity cited by Metzger is Arbela, a city east of the Tigris River in the Adiabene region (Metzger, Early Versions, p. 7). Its origin is accounted in a collection of biographical tales composed ca. 550 C.E. This collection, the Chronicles of Arbela, suggests Christianity’s arrival in the region through the work of Addai during the reign of emperor Trajan (98–117 C.E.) (Metzger, Early Versions, p. 7 n. 5). Regardless of its historical origins, it seems Christianity is well established in Syriac-speaking Eastern regions in the middle of the second century, Edessa, capital of Osrhoëne, do not come under Roman dominion until Emperor Caracala (216 C.E.).25 The uniqueness of Syriac Christianity, as is often pointed out, is that seems to have been the first expression of that religion that had not been under the extensive influence of Hellenism.
2. Origins of the Syriac New Testament
3. The origins of Syriac Christian literary activity is likewise difficult. Some suggest Edessa as the likely origin of early literature, such as the Odes of Solomon and the Testament of Adam, as well as traditions regarding the origins of the Gospel of Thomas (εcVey, “Edessa,” pp. 2.2κ4–287). But the origins of the Syriac NT, both in its constituent parts and as a collection, are difficult and disputed. For canon among Syiac-speaking Christians, see Metzger, Early Versions, pp. 4–ι5ν Theodor Zahn, “Das σeue Testament Theodors von εopsuestia und der ursprüngliche Kanon der Syrer,” Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift xi (1900): 788–κ06ν Julias A. Brewer, “The History of the σew Testament Canon in the Syrian Church,” American Journal of Theology iv (1900): pp. 64–98, 345–63; Walter Bauer, Der Apostolos der Syrer in der Zeit von der Mitte des vierlen Jahrhunderts bis zu Spaltung der syrischen Kirche (Giessen: J. Ricker, 1903); Mauricius Gordillo, Theologia orientalium cum latinorum comparata (Orientalia christiana anelecta, clviii; Rome: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1960); E.B. Eising, “Zur Geschicthe des Kanons der Heiligen Schrift in der ostsyrischen Kirche im ersten Jahrtausend,” Diss., Würtzburg, 1972. One scholar suggests the Gospel of Thomas is the earliest Syriac account of the life of Jesus, dating perhaps thirty to forty years before Tatian’s Diatessaron (Metzger, Early Versions, p. 9, citing H. S. Pelscr, “The τrigin of the Ancient Syriac σew Testament Texts— A Historical Study,” De fructu oris sui: Essays in Honour of Adrianus van Selms (ed. I. H. Eybcrs, et al.; Pretoria Oriental Series 9, ed. by A. van Selms, ix; Leiden: Brill, 1971), pp. 161–162).
4. Though that gospel is extant only in Coptic, scholars (H.-Ch. Peuch, G. Garitte, A. Guillaumon, G. Quispel) have long observed semitisms which suggest a possible origin in Syria.31 To complicate matters still further, the relationship between the Gospel of Thomas and Tatian’s Diatessaron remains unclear (Metzger, Early Versions, pp. 9–10).
5. The Gospel of Mark in the Old Syriac Tradition
6. [The Gospel of Mark is extant in a number of Syriac traditions. In the so-called “τld Syriac”42 Mark is sparsely attested. The Curetonian (Syrc ; Add. MS. 14451)44 is a parchment copied in the fifth century in beautiful Estangela script. This “very lacunose” manuscript contains from εark only 16.1ιb–20.45 The second manuscript of the Old Syriac tradition is known as Sinaiticus (Syrs ; MS. Sin. Syr. 30),46 a palimpsest copied in the fifth or fourth century.47 142 of its original 166 leaves survive, including Mark 1.12b–44a; 2.21–4.17; 5.1–26a; 6.5b–16.8.48 The Curetonian and Sinaitic are not identical texts but are sufficiently similar to treat together.49 Unfortunately, in Mark the two manuscripts have nothing in common.50 Though we can observe that the last twelve verses of Mark are omitted in Sinaitic but included by Curetonian. This version likely originates from the third century and underwent subsequent revisions. Lyon observes a few characteristics of Old Syriac Mark worth our noting. In general, Old Syriac Mark favors idioms and Jewish words often removed from the Peshitta. For instance, Old Syriac Mark’s ܘܪܐ ܣܐ) 7:35 (is familiar in Jewish Aramaic, though changed to ܪܐ ܣܐ in Peshitta Mark.54 Old Syriac Mark will use ܬܘܒ for words such as たさせ蹟kす or οὐせ蹟kす, but not for πάそすち (15.13). Old Syriac Mark will use ܘܬܘܒ as a narrative formula, where the Peshitta, and typically the Greek, does not. Mark’s k碩ち しάそαjjαち kῆな Γαそすそαίαな (7.31) in Old Syriac Mark is ܐ ܝܡܬ ܕܓܠܝܐ, where the form ܝܡܬܐ is typically used with reference to a proper name. Here Peshitta Mark prefers the more general ܝܡܐ.
7. In this respect, the τld Syriac Mark exhibits a “zeal for accuracy” and even a familiarity with the geographical location in view.55 Old Syriac Mark is at times offers some stylistic clarifications.56 For example, for k碩ち χεῖとα (Mark 7.32) the Old Syriac Mark chooses ܐܝܕܗ, whereas Peshitta Mark has ܐܝܕܐ. Old Syriac of Mark tends to include the possessive whether present in the Greek or not. Finally, Old Syriac Mark offers adjustments to the Greek for the sake of sensible Syriac. For instance, for the ἔβαそεち at 7.33, Old Syriac Mark uses ܣܡ, which is not a lexical equivalent to the Greek but nonetheless appropriate to the context. Peshitta Mark chooses ܐܪܡܝ, which is closer lexically to the Greek but not quite so fitting contextually.