The Old Syriac is an ancient Aramaic version of the four Gospels, which was widely used until it was eclipsed by the Peshitta version of the Gospels in the late fifth or early sixth century. So complete was this eclipse that the version was totally lost until its recovery in the nineteenth century. Even now this version is only represented by two manuscripts, one from the fourth century, and one from the fifth century.
The first manuscript obtained from the monastery of St. Mary Deipara in the valley of the Natron Lakes in Egypt in 1842. It was not until 1858 that Dr. William Cureton identified and published the text. This manuscript is called the Curetonian or Codex Syrus Curetonianus and is catalogued as British Museum Add. No. 14451. It is generally dated to the fifth century.
The second manuscript was discovered by Agnes Smith Lewis at the St. Cathrine’s Monastery on traditional Mt. Sinai in 1892. This manuscript is called the Syriac Siniatic or Codex Syrus Sinaiticus and is catalogued as Mt. Sinai Syriac Ms. No. 30. It is generally dated to the fourth century.
The two manuscripts contain many variances from each other. Each occasionally agrees with the Peshitta against the other, however this is far more common with the Curetonian manuscript. Neither manuscript is complete but between the two of them we do have most of the text of the four Gospels in this version.
Upon examining this version Dr. Cureton published a detailed study of the text along with his own conclusion saying:
…this Gospel of St. Matthew appears at least to be built upon the original Aramaic text which was the work of the Apostle himself.
(Remains of a Very Ancient Recention of the Four Gospels in Syriac; Dr. William Cureton; 1858, p. vi)
Matthew Black called Cureton’s theory in this regard a “curiosity”
stating:
…it is a sufficient refutation… to point out… that Edessene Syriac, the language of the Curetonian version, is a quite different branch of Aramaic from the Palestinian Jewish dialect which the Apostles spoke and in which any writings of theirs would presumably have composed.
(An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts 3rd Edition; Matthew Black; 1967; p. 249)
However, it is entirely plausible that the Old Syriac Gospels could represent the original Aramaic, regardless of their Syriac dialect. The first gentile assembly was at Antioch. According to Eusebius, Luke was raised at Antioch. Antioch served as the center of the gentile Messianic movement as Jerusalem served as the center of the Jewish movement. It would seem likely that many NT books might have been written in the Syriac dialect and still others may have been revised into the Syriac dialect. It must b remembered that Syriac Aramaic and Judean Aramaic are two dialects of the very same language. Moreover, as will be shown below, traces of the Judean Diaect of Aramaic remain in the Old Syriac Gospels. Thus the issue of dialect is not sufficient to dismiss the Old Syriac from being a part of the original Aramaic tradition.
In his book An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, Matthew Black includes an appendix titled The West Aramaic Elements in the Old Syriac Gospels, in which he states:
A Number of linguistic anomalies in the Old Syriac Gospels cannot be explained in terms of Edessene Syriac. Many of these forms and uses are regular in West Aramaic. The following study of the West Aramaic element in the Old Syriac is based for the most part on the chapter on the Grammar and Syntax of the Old Syriac in the second volume of Burkitt’s Evangelion da-Mepharreshe.
(An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts Third Edition by Matthew Black, 1967. p. 281)
Black then gives six pages of examples of cases where the Old Syriac uses vocabulary or grammar that are not valid in the Eastern Aramaic dialect of Edessene Syriac, but are very appropriate in the Western Dialect.
To these may be added an example in Luke 8:27 and 39.
Luke 8:27 “a certain man from the province (מדינתא)”
Luke 8:39 “and he was proclaiming in all the province (מדינתא)”
(In both of these readings, the Peshitta, which we will later show to be a revision of the Old Syriac, retains the word מדינתא)
In both of these readings, the Greek takes the word to mean “city”. In the Harvard Theological Review, we read of this word:
In Hebrew and Jewish-Aramaic writings, from the earliest attested use of the word down through the first few centuries after Christ, medina has the meaning ‘province’; in the Gentile usage it always and everywhere means ‘city’.
(Harvard Theological Review, Vol. XVII (1924) p. 84)
These traces of elements of Western Aramaic in the Old Syriac text are evidence that the Old Syriac text is a Syriac rendering or revision of a Western Aramaic version. The evidence presented here-in will demonstrate that that underlying Western Aramaic was the “original” Aramaic (in some cases this “Original Aramaic” was itself a Western Aramaic rendering of Hebrew originals).
There are also several readings which reveal a uniquely Jewish character of the texts.
In Luke 2:22 the Peshitta has דתדכיתהון “of their purification” in agreement with the Greek. However the Old Syriac has דתדכיתה “of her purification. In fact, it was only Miriam that would have undergone the purification ritual (Lev. 12:1`-8).
Under Construction