Syriac Sinaiticus’ Gospel Variants

The Syriac Sinaiticus,  a late 4th century codex also known also as the Sinaitic Palimpsest or the Codex Syriacus, contains a translation of the four canonical gospels of the New Testament into Syriac. It is the oldest translation of the Bible into any language. In 778 CE it was palimpsested with a vita (biography) of female saints and martyrs. The Syriac Sinaiticus is the oldest copy of the gospels in Syriac, and one of two surviving manuscripts (the other being the Curetonian Gospels) that are conventionally dated to before the Peshitta, the standard Syriac translation of the Bible. (The Syriac Sinaiticus: The Oldest Translation of the Bible)

Matthan begat Jacob; Jacob begat Joseph; Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin, begat Jesus, who is called the Christ.

All these generations from Abraham until David are fourteen generations; and from David until the captivity of Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the captivity of Babylon until the Christ are fourteen generations.

And the birth of the Christ was on this wise: When Mary his mother was espoused to Joseph, when they had not come near one to the other, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, because he was just, did not wish to expose Mary, and was minded quietly to repudiate her. But while he thought on these things, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a vision, and said unto him, Joseph, son of David, fear not to take Mary thy wife: for that which is begotten from her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bear to thee a son, and thou shalt call his shall call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now this which happened was that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by Isaia the prophet, who said, Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. When Joseph arose from his sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took his wife: and she bore to him a son, and he called his name Jesus. Matthew 1:16-25 (A translation of the four Gospels, from the Syriac

of the Sinaitic Palimpsest, by Agnes Smith [Macmillan and Co., 1894], pp. 1-2)

Let us now see what our Codex says about the Gospel of Matthew. In chap. i. v. 8 the name of Joram is followed immediately by that of Uzziah; and the three kings, Ahazia, Joash, and Amuzia, who came betwixt them in Cureton’s MS., are absent.

In v. 16 we come to the most startling variation in our Codex. Although none of the surviving Syriac students, except the transcriber, who were present at Sinai in 1893, knew of this strange reading until months after our return home, and although Professor Bensly has not appended his initials to the foot of the page, we shall not venture to doubt the accuracy of the transcription, which, however, rests upon the evidence of one pair of eyes only. We ask our readers to consider carefully the whole passage, from v. 16 to the end of the chapter.

It is hardly possible to find a consistent narrative in this self-contradictory recital. Had v. 16 stood alone we might have suspected a clerical error, but the occurrence of the word lek (“to thee”) in v. 21, and leh (“to him “) in v. 25, with the omission of the words, kai ouk eginosken auten, heos hou, makes it almost certain that the statement in v. 16 is an intentional one. Our Codex stands alone in its peculiar readings of these three verses, and doubtless some critics will be inclined to set its authority against that of all the oldest Greek MSS. of all the versions, and of its own sister manuscript, the Curetonian. If so, we hope they will be consistent, and make its text the touch-stone of accuracy everywhere else, not forgetting its reading of v. 18, “when they had not come near one to another, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.”

In the meantime, there are some considerations bearing on this subject which we shall do well to keep in mind.

We have in Matthew’s narrative, and in Luke’s, two genealogies, both of Joseph only. Possibly the one was on the father’s side, the other on the mother’s side, and both are probably copied from an official register, the last clause of which was perhaps added at the time of the Presentation in the Temple, and was modified by the Evangelist when he became fully acquainted with the story of Mary. It is possible that we have here a partly modified form; but even here Mary is called the Virgin a title which no one unacquainted with the miraculous birth of her first-born would naturally have given her.

The fact that Joseph was troubled about Mary’s condition is simply inexplicable if he were the father of Jesus. And it is difficult to reconcile the idea of his being a just man with that of his wishing to put her away. These circumstances the scribe of our Codex, if he were a heretic, has not been bold enough to suppress.

We have no genealogy of Mary. This is only natural. Our Lord’s social position and civil rights were determined by the relation in which He stood to one who was both His reputed father and his foster-father. His disciples were eager that He should claim the throne of David and drive out the Romans, and they therefore laid great stress upon Joseph’s ancestry. Even after our Lord’s Ascension, as they were disappointed in their expectation that His second coming would take place in their own life-time, they took care that there should be a permanent record of this. We can easily imagine that Mary would make known her wonderful secret to a few only, and that it was not at once published abroad to a nation who would have received it with scornful incredulity. But from the few it was doubtless communicated to many of the disciples, and we can hardly believe that they did not investigate the truth of a statement which most of them sealed with suffering and with death. The seclusion in which Eastern women are kept, not indeed in their houses, but from social intercourse with all members of the other sex who are not of kin to them, and their own gregarious habits, make it highly improbable that Mary could be guilty of a lapse from virtue without the knowledge of some female companion. St. Luke states, chap. i. v. 3, that he had investigated all these things from the beginning, and it is much to be regretted that Luke i. v. 35 occurs on a lost page of our manuscript.

Meanwhile, it is important to remember that we have not ascertained all the facts which may throw light upon the history of this Sinai Codex. In particular, we have not the initial title, a title whose actual existence has been detected from my photographs by Mr. Rendel Harris. It is on the recto of the page which contains Matthew i. 1-17, and it may yet tell us both the name of the scribe, and the place where the MS. was written. (Introduction, pp. xxii-xxv; emphasis mine)

“But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no not the angels of heaven, but the Father only.” (p. 48; emphasis mine)

“But of that day and of that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, nor even the Son, but the Father.” (p. 86; emphasis mine)

“hath ascended up to heaven, …. but he …. heaven, …. the Son of man which is from heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life the world, . . . . that whosoever believeth in him …. not …. For God sent [not] his Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: and he that believeth not in him is condemned, because he hath not believed in the name of the only Son.” John 3:13-18 (p. 168; emphasis mine)