Abc by AHLUSSUNNAH VAL JAMAAH

TH E SY R I AC FO R M S

TE STAM EN T PR O P E R

N EW

F C .

FE LL O W

BU R K ITT

O F TH E

A CA D E M Y

Read Janumy 2 4, 1 9 1 2 TH E

subj ect I have ch os e n for this Paper sounds I fear rath e r dry and technical so that it may not be out of place to begin by claiming that it presents one element of general interest The Pilgrim from Palestine with his staff and his scallop shell and hi s tales of the Holy Land i s one of the m ost pi c turesque ﬁgures of the middle ages : it will be my task this afternoon to introduce you to the earliest of that band the earliest that has left any re c ord His tale is told in a dead language and perhaps not all his archaeology i s c orrect but he deserves to be heard with the respe c t due to a pioneer The New Testa ment is a colle cti on of G reek writings and it is not till the last quarter of the second century A D that there is any eviden c e o f e ff orts to translate it into other tongues B ut in the peri o d betwee n 1 70 and 200 the G ospels Acts and Pauline Epistles were translated into Latin in the West at Rome or Carthage and into Syriac in the East at Edess a in the Euphrates Valley The translation o f the New Testament into Latin presented no special di fﬁculty and least of all in the proper names There i s of course a right way and a wrong as those kno w who have read Pro fessor H ous man s amusing arti c le in the last number of the Journal of Phi lology on G reek Nouns in ‘ Latin Poetry But the points raised are a ft er all of subsidiary intere s t The Latin translator had merely to give the Latin letter which c ustom and authority prescribed as equivalent to the Greek letter He had no need to be wise above that which had been written : it is a pretty question whether we ought to write Plz ara o ,

“

’

is worth whil e recordi ng th e fact th at th e old e s t Ch ris ti an M SS s upp ort Profe ss or Housman s ge ne ral c oncl usi ons e g k h as He rode n and t h e \ V ii rz b urg Pali mp s e st i n Je re mi ah xiii h as E ufrate n 1

’

PROCEED INGS OF THE

BRITISH

A C AD EMY

or Farao but all that either form tells us is that the title of the king o f Egypt is spelt ( ha oco in Greek p The tran s lator from Greek into Syriac is in a very di fferen t case Syriac the former c omm o n speech of the Euphrates Valley is a Semiti c language the fi r s t c ousin of Hebrew Like Hebre w many of the vowels do no t appear in writing and those that are written are gi v en in a notation that a cc ording to our ideas is singul arly i mperfe ct On the other hand many distinctions are made espe c i al ly i n the sibilants whi ch di s appear in the Greek and ( as in Hebrew ) there are four true guttural so u nd s whi ch are not represented i n Greek at all It is easy enough t o transliterate true Greek Proper Name s into Syriac They look indeed rather c lu msy and without the 1 insertion of vowel s igns th e transliterations are often ambiguous The real di ffi culty and the real interest arises when as so often i n the New Testament the Proper Name in the Greek is itself a transliteration or adaption of a Semiti c word Greek is a poor l anguage for su ch a purpose and the Semitic words lose in tran s literation many of their most striking c haracteristics The Patriarc hs are shorn of their guttural s : Yi s é d k and Ya ci lcob become ABPAAM I caaK and I aKmB and there is nothing to tell the reader that Abraham s h is an English I t Isaac s is a kh ( or very nearly ) while Jac ob s is the peculiar Semiti c a z n Moreover without private information the re trans lator from Greek into a Semiti c language would not know where to put the gutturals in : as a matter of fact the h in Afip aap c omes between the sec ond and third a the it in I craa x c omes instead of the first a and the in I a o c omes between the a and the K These di fficulties lie in the nature of the languages and confront a translator as soo n as he sets about his task When therefore w e find that the older Syriac Versions speaking generally do not simply transliterate t he N e w Testament Proper Names but give the proper Semiti c equivalent we are obviously i n the presen c e of a learned achievement of a work of Biblical learning which demands el ucidation and explanation How did the Syriac translator come by his information 9 ,

‘

’

‘

’

few words may here be said on the Syriac Versions of whi c h ac c ount will be taken here The Syriac Vulgate commonly called .

h q at Ni come di a on M arc h 25 is g iv e n Th e c om m e m orat i on of a c e rta i n Ao u I t d oe s n t l ook by Li e tz mann from th e anci e nt S yriac M artyrol ogy as dvl s q ui te s o b ad i n S y ri ac l ette rs ! 1

’

SYRIAC FORMS OF N EW TESTAMENT NAMES

the Peshitta comprises the greater part of the Old and New Testa ments It i s preserved with a surprising ab s en c e of variation in many MSS some of which are a s old as the fifth c entury The Canonical Book s of the Old Testament were translated originally direct from the Hebre w probably by Jews rather than Christian s ; but certain books notably that of Isaiah seem to have been revised from the G reek Bible The s o called Apocrypha such as the Book of Wisdom must have been translated from the Greek The text of the Peshitta in the N e w Testament is also a revision ; it is now generally recogni z ed that this revision was made by Rab b ula B ishop of Edessa from 4 1 1 to 4 35 No MS of the A cts or Pauline Epistles previous to this revision su rvives but two MSS of the Gospels are known Cureton s MS and the Sinai Palimpsest whi c h represent the texts current before Rabb ula Besides thes e MSS we have the scanty remains of Syriac literature earlier than the ﬁfth century notably the works of Ap h raate s A D ) and Ephrai m ( d 373 A large m ass of evidence tends to she w that the form in which the G ospel general ly circulated among Syriac speaking Christian s before the time of Rab b ul a was not the Four separate G ospels but Tatian s D iatessaron this work survi v es in a late Arabi c translation but the Syriac text from which this Arabi c translation was made had been assimilated wholesale to the Peshitta In any case the Arabic cannot be depended on for details connected with the spelling of Proper Na mes Our three chief authorities therefore are the Sinai Palimpsest ( S ) the C ure to nian MS ( C ) and the Peshitta ( P ) A later Syriac version of the parts of the New Testament not comprised in the Peshitta ( v i z 2 Peter 2 and 3 John Jude and the Apocalypse ) made in the sixth century for Phi lox e nus of M abb ogh is c ited a s Many of the Proper N ames in the G ospels are mentioned by A p h raate s whose works include a Homily on the Gospel G e ne alog i his eviden c e where necessary is quoted as A It is clear that f o r 1 the most part Ap h raate s used the D iatessaron ,

’

Rab b ula s ’

revision of the text was in many ways drastic and thorough going but fortunately the Proper Names were very little altered His procedure was not unlike that of the English Revi s ers of 1 88 1 wh o also left the Proper Names mu ch as they were though in other respects they made alterations in the direction of conformity to the Greek The proof of the above statement lies in the very -

Th e

b r afte r

num e

th e

pag e

i n Patroloyz a Syriaca , ‘

v ol

( l 89 4)

PROCEE DIN G S OF THE

BRITISH

ACAD EMY

numerous agreements of S C and P and the very fe w c ases of ac tual di fferen ce For instan ce the final I ) in Beelz ebub is atte sted by no Greek M S so far as I kno w b u t Rab b ula retains it following both S and C and also A 7 1 4 The agreement between S C and P i n the Gospel s is the j usti fi c ation f o r using P in the rest of the New Testament where S and C fail us It should of c ourse be remarked that the definite agree ment of P with S C is naturally c onfined to those Proper Names whi c h are transmitted without variant in the Greek Naturally it may happen that there is a variant in a name and i n su ch cases P and S C are sometimes fo und on opposite sides e g in Joh i 2 8 S C support Bethabara while P supports Bethany But such c ase s are comparatively rare and do not seriously c all in question the general faithfulness of P to the nomenclature of the Old Syriac Version A glance at S C and P shews that the general practice of the translator of the New Testament into Syriac whoever he may have been was to give the Old Testament equivalent for the Proper Names as far as this c ould be done A discussion of this part of the s ubj ect wil l be found in E v ang eli on da rll ep harres hé vol ii pp 2 0 1 — 2 0 5 and I need not repeat it here as I do not think the dependence of the Syriac N e w Testament in this respect upon the Syria c Old Testament has ever been seriously c hallenged The eviden c e forces u s in fac t to regard the Old Testament Peshitta as older than the Syriac New Testamen t and as having been familiar to the translat o r of the latter This at on c e a c counts for a large number of peculiar forms the origin of whi ch does not here con cern us as it is su ffi c ient to say that they were taken from the Old Testament Thus Zion is tran s literated IV 11C Sebyon though the Greek is Emi r and t h e Hebre w ’ ff c form c an ha v e arisen It is di i ult to see how the Syria c i i 3 but it throws no direct light upon the geographi cal knowledge of the New Testament translator as no doubt it was taken direct from 1 the Old Testament in Syria c Some of the greater Geographi cal names may very well ha v e been derived from common knowledge and use names suc h as DB W WW S ’ ’ Uri s lz le m for Jerusalem or Wfi J l l l B ath A ah fln for Mesopotamia l t at needs in v e s tigati o n are the rarer names names of persons that ,

’

‘

’

;

’

lan d is re g ul arl y re nd e re d in th e Pe shi tta b y « t o m thi rs t y —S i t is t h e re fore p rob abl e t h at [ V3 w as und e rs tood to m e an D ry Tor s uc h si g ni ﬁ c at i on

‘

dry

’

s ome

, .

SYRIAC FORMS OF NEW TESTAMENT NAMES

do not appear to have been familiar to Syria c speaking folk and names of places for which we can hardl y suppose that the nati v e s of Edessa or even of Antioch could have had speci al appellations Once more we may remind ourselves of the nature of the pro ce s se s gone through before a New Testament Semiti c Proper Name appears in Syriac It has been transliterated from Hebrew or Aramai c into Greek letters : the Syriac translator then takes this Greek tran s literation and either transliterates it into Syriac letters or dec ide s on an appropriate Syriac equivalent The latter process is not transliteration but really a kind of translation : it may aff ord u s historical information about the subj e c t matter of the New Testament but should not be used as a textual variant This si mple cautio n is not al w ays reme mbered as an example will make clear The name ’ Cai ap h as ( Ka cdcta s or Ka ctpa s ) is transliterated ND ; Cep has ( a ﬁi s ) P on the other hand is NBND At ﬁ rst sight it seem s irreg ular that the Syriac equivalent to Kncp as should begin w ith 3 instead of P But what we have to recogni z e is that NBND is not a transliteration at all but the Syriac for stone : the translator or possibly Syriac Churc h custom recogni z ed that S Peter s nam e was Si mon S tone 1 and they called him where necessary by this appellative -

’

‘

’

‘

’

When Westcott and Hort discuss the breathings to be assigned to New Testa ment Proper Names such as AAc/ mi og they talk about the authority of the Syriac ( I nti od It is one of the chief obj ects of this Paper to fi nd out in what exactly the authority of the Syriac consists Is it we ask a real and c ontinuous Palestinian tradition or is it merely an achievement of learning meritorious and interesting indeed but not really authoritative ? What had the Syriac translator to go by when the Old Testament failed him and when the context did not suggest ( as it did in the case of S Peter s name ) a practically certain solution P N o w it is true that there are a number of excellent transliteration s or identi fi cations whichever we like to c all them to be found in the ’ Syriac versions Simon the Cananaean is rendered N JJ P and so is properly distinguished from the Canaanite woman ( X a v a v a a ) ’ who is NH JVJD Ta bi th a and Ta li th a are sa dl y confused in Lati n MSS in the Syriac texts they are properly distinguished and intelligently spelt Words referring to Jewish Parties & c — Phari s ees Phylacte rie s ( Peri s hé ) Sadducees ( Zadd ﬁ lcaye) Osanna T hil e l é ( p ) are given a Syriac dress that is ne ar enough to the I t is t h e same i n Arabi c wh e e S P e t e r is comm onl y call e d ( or wi ) ’

’

“

PROCEE D INGS OF THE

BRITISH

ACA D EMY

urrent Jewish techni cal term to suggest some knowledge of Jewi s h c onditions Of the personal names I) ” for Annas N71) for 1 2 x ov gab ] NTBW for Sapphira NBN D for Barabbas fl) 3 " i e Saturday s hild for B ars abb as c are all well spelt m for ( ) ’ Thaddaeus and NSW ( Da lman 1 2 4 ) for 2 5mm are recogni z ed a s Se m itic names and spelt a ccordingly : it may be re marked in passing ’ that the name of Simon Magus is spelt jlb D ( Si mon) in Syriac a s distinguished from Simon Peter and Simon the Tanner who are given the same name as Simeon (IW DW Shi m on) the Patriarch As is well known the Syriac New Testament translates X p w r o s by ” I 7) oi3s becomes 9 1W ( pro M s hi ha i e Messiah wherever it occurs no unce d Yes hu and which i s the later Hebre w form of Joshua ’ The Peshitta al ways represents wwm by ” i t” e g in Josh i 1 and it was no doubt the Syriac form of the name Joshua tha t determined the spelling of the name for Je s us among Syria c speaking Christians It may here be mentioned that the c ontroversial works of Ephraim Syrus no w being edited by my friend Mr C W Mitchell for the Text and Translation Society from a palimpsest in the British Museum will shew that the Syriac speaking Marc ionites were not similarly influen ced by the Old Testament and that they transliterated 3770 0 17 9 ’ by I D ’ n Of the place names i Syria c I m) : for X Op a Ca v agrees with th e Ta lmudi c spelling ; N35 ( B eth Phagg é ) for Bn0¢ a y1§ is at least probable ; and NT }: ( B eth Sayyada) for q o a todv though o therwise unattested is pos s ible Other spellings such as 08 ? t for Arabia whi ch at first sight might seem inappropriate are to be explained from the fac t that su ch Greek words are not representation s of Semitic names at all but ne w Greek appellati o ns The Ap afi e s of ’ 1 A cts ii 1 are properly rendered by N D N ; but Ap a 8 ta is a mere geographi c al expression invented by the Greeks and Romans whi c h is wisely transliterated by the Peshitta in Gal i 1 7 iv 2 5 witho u t Semi ti c gutturals : S Paul never m eant us to infer that he passed three years among the Bedouins All these Syriac transliterations are intelligent and a few of them really striking At the same time it will be noti ced that they are fairly straightforward ; the best of them suc h as those for X Op a fe t v c

’

‘

”

’

‘

’

viii

Th e

nam e

rt i ﬁ e d

Nabate an b y an i ns cri pt i o n at M ad ai n S alih s e e E x p osi tor ( 5 th Se r ) f or Fe bruary 1 8 9 9 p 1 2 1 Th e s ame p atrony m i c was b orne by th e we ll—k n own Rabbi Hi y a b Abb a 3 Th e n am e o f M r Satt urday Dav e nant m ay occu r t o s ome E ng lish re ad e rs M ore anti q ue and ori e ntal is B ai habbes habba ( i e S unday s c hild ) one of th e m arty rs com m e morat e d i n t h e anc i e nt Sy ri ac K al e nd ar of 4 1 1 1

’

SYRIAC FORMS OF NEW TESTAMENT NAMES

and x ov gag simply follow the most o rdinary rules of transliteration We now have to consider one or two that I ven ture to c haract eri z e as strikingly bad The first i mpression of the m odern scholar accustomed to the methods of the Syro Hexaplar and H arcle an versions is to regard with respect all Syriac transliterations that contain Semitic g utturals But or Semiti c sibilants i e all words containing n or U 3 or thi s assumes that the Syriac word is meant for a real transliteration of the Greek ; the case is quite di fferent when there has been an attempt to find a Syriac equivalent for the Greek word The clearest instan c e of what I m ean is to be found in the Philoxenian ( and H arcle an) rendering of Abaddon i n Apoc ix 1 1 Here we are definitely told that the word means destroying in G reek so that it i s quite c ertain that the Old Testa ment word is intended B ut the J N N I Syriac equivalent is 17 317 i e the translator has used the abs sing of « ( ch e m servitude This i s universally recogni z ed as being a translator s blunder and nothing more At the same time it lead s us to infer that the translator c ould have had no contact with any real tradition about the Jewish background to this Apocalypse But what Abadclon proves about the Apocalypse Jai rus prove s for the Gospel in Syriac The name l de cp os o c c urs in the G reek Bible in Esth ii 5 where we read of M ap hoxai o s 6 7 0 8 I a e tp ov When we look the passage up in the original Hebre w we find that Mordec ai was the son of Jai r This evidence i s really su ffi cient to e s tablish both the original for m of the name in the G ospel story and also its appropriateness there Any name thought appropriate for an Israelite in a late and popular book like Esther might be expec ted to o c cur as the name of a personage mentioned in the 1 G ospels Jai rus (Mk v 2 2 L k viii 4 1 ) should therefore have been ” But the nam e only o c curs in the nominative T N in the Syriac and the translator seems to have thought that the final 0 9 was part as if it were one o f the root and so he turns I de tp o s into o f those Jewish names beginning with It is a bad blunder as bad as turning Abaddon into servitude the value of it for us i s to make it unlikely that the Syriac translator of the Gospels was in touch with any real histori cal tradition about the names that occur i n the course of the narrative J ai rus does not stand alone It would indeed be unfair to lay ,

’

‘

’

‘

’

‘

we may als o record Jo se p h us E] ii 1 9 1

th e e

xiste nce

El ea

zar b

Jai r

me nt i one d by

ritte n

1 a;

viii 4 1

sp e lli ng als o found

i n G wi ll i am

’

( Mk )

PRO CEE D INGS OF THE

A CA D EM Y

BRITISH

v ery much stress on c ertain Names in the G enealogies such as Nh ion ( L k iii 31 S P) where no doubt S Luke s M arra GaL was meant f o r ,

’

HERD

In some of these obs cure names the irregular Spelling of the Syriac parti cularly as preserved in S appears to be due to a know ledge that the Greek spelling itself was quite irregular : instances are L a: s a and A in L k iii 32 S for B oaz and O bed correspondi ng no doubt to Boo c and I wBHA The c ourse of Abi a in L k i 5 i s ’ spelt N JS in the Peshitta in agreement with the Greek and with ’ 1 Chr xxi v 1 0 while S has U n N in agreement with the Old Latin MSS e and In su ch cases as these we are dealing with tran s literations rather than identifi cations and at the same ti me the Syriac bec omes for the non ce an authority for the spelling of the G reek word from whi c h it is derived More signifi c ant than these are i’NJ for N a t v ( L k vii 1 1 ) and S ( Matt) (DUE) P ( Matt Mk ) for Pe dm wav e f NJDD U S ( M k) 1 Wha tever view may be held about the ( Matt xxvi 36 Mk xiv 32 ) original meaning and spelling of these obscure names it i s clear that the Syriac translator had no private information and that he gue s sed and guessed badly from the Greek letters in hi s exemplar Nain if it be connected with the plac e quoted in N eu bauer 1 88 ought to have an a i n in it and the latter part of Gethsemane is c onne c ted w ith the Hebrew for oil and should have a 29 not a D Gennesaret or G enne sar again is WDJJ in ( see D alman Syriac the Talmudi c form is fi Du’J and it is natural to suppose that if the Syriac translator had derived his spelling of the name from living tradition it would have in cluded a 0 between the n and the s Of the name s in the A cts and Epi s tles m al vi m for Ap e r a 2 The name of the ( 2 Cor xi 32 ) is a v ery poor transliteration Ethnarch mu s t have been ni ml i later spelt in Syriac ai m ( Wright CB M 7 0 4 b ) correspondi ng to the well known Arabi c names H ari tha or el Hari th In A c ts ix 35 it is odd to find RJl I D l put for r ev Bap aya ( instead of NJfi W ) side by side with I l? for Al oha Ptolemais be comes 131? and Joppa but Tarsu s is merely transliterated Di b flb pos s ibly the pride of Roman c iti z en s hip had m ade Tarsus fo rget that in th e Persian period it had spelt its name fi n on its c oins Gaz a ( NU) and A z otus ( l l lN) have Greek not Semiti c forms of their names I have left out of c onsideration hitherto a number of the mo s t interesting and c ontroversial proper names in the Syriac New Testa .

’

‘

’

‘

’

‘

’

‘

’

‘

’

‘

’

‘

’

‘

’

‘

’

‘

1 2

Th e T he

ld e st transm i tted pronunci at i on is Gads é man (s e e Gwi lli am p 1 71 note ) Arm e ni an of h as Aret wi th no sig n of an i ni t i al g utt ural

SYRIAC FOR M S OF NEW TESTAMENT NAMES

m ent ,

be cause we ought to examine them with reasonable ideas of th e kind of rules or information from whi c h the S yriac translator worked So far as we have gone I venture to think we have found nothing pointing to a spe c ial or extraordinary knowledge The translat or is familiar with the Old Testament in Syriac and he has a good knowledge of ordinary geography whi c h he shews by giving the native names of the coast towns But he does not always recogni z e Semitic names in their Greek dress and there is no sign that he is specially familiar with the towns of J udae a or Galilee or w ith the forms of Jewi s h name s apart fro m those in the Old Testament I begin with the name Cai ap has about the spelling of which 1 c the authority of the Syria has frequently been invoked Thi s in agreement with name is spelt Ka mchae in most G reek MSS but D and the Latins have KAKDAC The Josephus ( Ant xviii Syriac has NB’ and this is often supposed to be a definite pro P nounce m e nt i n favour of the first over the second G reek reading I doubt this : it is of course an indication of the way the Syriac t ranslator thought the word was spelt in Palestinian Aramaic but I do not think it gives us any in formation of the way the word w as spelt in the Greek MS from which the Syriac was translated The Syriac translator thought Bneo a i od ( or Endo a todv ) m eant Fisherman s To wn well and good But if he turns Bneo a tod into B eth Sayyada as he does it is fairly obvious that his Kayydp h a may stand for Ka np as as well as Ka wub a s A somewhat similar conclusion appears to m e to be indicated in the case of B etha bam and the Gerg es enes a cou ple of names which are very important i n this c onnexion as the forms found i n the Old Syriac MSS have been supposed to demonstrate that the Old Syriac Version itself was made later than Origen and under the in fluence of h i s 2 It h as been supposed that Origen himself introduced the exegesis name Gergesenes ( for Gadarenes or Gerasenes ) as the name o f the peopl e among whom the D emoniac was healed and also the name Bethabara for Bethany beyond Jordan where John was ’ z bapti ing Consequently when we find N DJWJ in Mk v 1 S and ” NR) ? h : in Joh i 28 S C it is a plausible inferen c e that the Old 3 Syriac reading is founded upon Origen s conj e ctures .

’

‘

’

‘

’

‘

’

g E ncy B i bl 1 72 note 1 2 Th e s u bs ta nce of th e foll ow i ng dis cussi on on t h e s e words is tak e n from th e p re s e nt wri t er s art i cl e i n th e Ame ri can Journal of Biblical L iteratu re xxvii 1 28 —1 33 Gerges a— a Re ply c all e d 3 I t may b e con v e ni e nt to i ndi cate h e re s om e t e x tual fac ts whi c h are ass ume d i n th e foll ow i ng disc u ssi on ( 1 ) O n g e ne ral grounds th e re can b e li tt le d oub t 1

See

’

P—

PROCEE D INGS OF THE

B RITISH

ACAD EMY

It seemed at first a c onfirmation of this theory that the name in M k v 1 was written in Syriac with a D not with a w Origen h ad not only expressed hi s O pinion that the name of the c ity near whi ch the swine had rushed i nto the sea was G e rge s a rather than Gadara o r Gerasa : he went on to identify the people with the Girgashites of Gen xv 2 1 Mr Raymond Clapp to whom i s due the credit of having c alled attention to the great importan c e of these names for our e s ti 1 ’ mate o f the date of the Old Syriac Version c on clude s that N DJWJ the reading of S in Mk v 1 is a simple tran s cript of a Greek MS whi ch read I ep ye o nvé w a readi ng whi ch was itself the result of Origen s c onj ecture A little c onsideration will however shew that the Syriac form suggests the opposite c on clusion v i z that all that it tells us is that the translator iden tified the c o u ntry of the [ Gerasenes ] with the land of the Girgashites For strange to say the Old Testament Peshitta in Gen x v 2 1 and elsewhere represents the Hebrew ” ’ W 31 3?! by N DUWJ The reason for thi s is quite ob s c ure j ust as it is quite obs cure why the Plain of Shinar s hould be turned in the Peshi t ta into WUJU The Sinai Palimpsest therefore intends us to understand Girgashites in M k v 1 and the word should be pro .

‘

’

‘

’

‘

’

‘

no unce d

Garg os ayé

With regard to Bethabara in Joh i 2 8 the case is similar The ’ K i ts word is written in C with the plural points ; they are lnot legible in S but whether they are really absent or merely illegible in S their presen c e in C shew s that the word was regarded as plural and therefore as a signiﬁcant appellation ( like O v erstrand ’

h at H ort s c onc l usi on is righ t vi z th e g e nui ne re adi ng of th e Gre e k is Gad are n e s i n M at t b ut G e rase ne s i n Mk and Lk ( 2 ) I n t h e Sy ri ac P h as Gadare ne s e v e rywh e re C h as Gad are ne s i n L k ( th e o nly pl ace wh e re i t is S h as Gad are n e s i n M att and Lk b ut i n Mk th e dis tri ct ( x bp a) of e x tant ) t h e G is re n d e re d t h e l an d of th e worn (3) Th e re nd e ri ng o f th e Di ates n at urally Ci as c a s Arabi c i m pli e s s aron is n ot k nown from any e arly auth ori t y Gadare ne s th e re adi ng of P ( 4 ) Syri ac V e rsi ons app e ar to h av e h ad s om e Abi m e l e c h of G e rar b e com e s t e nd e ncy t o i ntro d uce t h e nam e G ad are n e xx ) and th e H agare ne s of Ps lxxx i ii 6 b e com e «( 1 K Abi m e l e c h of Th e se Gadare ne s als o m e e t u s i n 1 Ch r xxvii 28 P (5 ) Gadare ne s i n M att viii 28 S is si m ply a c orre ct re nd e ri ng of t h e Gre e k and ne e ds no furt h e r G ad are ne s i n Lk vi i i 2 6 37 S C may b e a h armoni zat i on wi t h e xpl anat i on ; M att or ( m ore lik e ly) an assi m ilat i on to th e Di ate ssaron I t is th e re adi ng i n Mk v 1 S whi c h h as e scap e d h armoni zati on t hat nee ds e xpl a i n i ng Se e als o Bae th g e n s E vangeli en Journal of B i bli cal L i teratu re xxvi p 83 f ragmente Th e d roppi ng o f th e 0 i n re s e nts n o di ﬂ i c ul t y i n th e c as e of p k M For parall e ls s ee Evangeli on da M ep harres h e ii 40 : s e e als o a MS lik e S M att viii 28 i n th e margi n of th e Harcl e an V e rsi on ’

’

‘

’

SYRIAC FORM S OF NEW TESTAM ENT NAMES

and not as a transliteration of a Greek w o rd In this interpretation the Syriac di ffer s from Origen who thought that BnBaBap a mean t 1 ’ oi k o s Ka r a o x ev fis ( i e while N1 ?” fl fl from N33 to create ! ) the Syriac connects it with wép a v 7 0 8 I op odvov We find then that the Syriac agrees with Origen in thinking of the Girgashites as the people who owned the Herd of Swine and also in identi fying the place where John bapti z ed with a spot whi ch may be spelt in Greek Bnfia fi ap a A couple of identifications su c h as these can hardly have been made independently but we have further to go on and ask whether there is any j ustifi c ation for the common v iew that these identi fi cations were m ade for the fi rst ti me by Origen Origen s Com mentary on S John in whi c h these identifications are found is a bulky work composed partly at Alexandria and partly much later at Caesarea In the former books so far as they survive the geographical interest is absent though there are several piec es of Origen s c harac teristic lore abou t the Hebrew meanings of 2 N e w Testament names But from Book vi onward i e in the part written at Caesarea Origen airs his knowledge of Palestine and i s uite re ad y to c hange the transmitted text of Scripture accordingly q What has happened in the interval ? We could almost have guessed even apart from our author s express statement for we have all seen it in our friends and contemporaries Origen has been on a Pilgrimage through the Holy Land an d he no longer needs information about the sites for has he not seen them for hi mself At the same time as I pointed out in the Paper already referred to Origen does not him self clai m to have discovered Bethabara or W hat he tells us is that th ey s ay that Bethabara ( r a G erge s a Bnea fi ap a) i s s he wn by the gorge of the Jordan where th ey decla re that John bapti z ed ( Orig i n Joan vi Further on he mentions G e rg e s a from whi c h c ome the Girgashites ( o i Fep yea a io a) an ancient c ity by what is now called the Lake of Tiberias by whi c h is a steep plac e close to the L ake from which i t is s h ewn that the Swine were c ast down by the dem ons This is what he learnt when ( Ibid vi he went on his pilgrimage and i n accordan c e with his geographical information he points out that Bethany is not beyond Jordan and that neither Gerasa nor Gadara is situated on the Sea of Galilee The step that Origen took was to emend the Greek text of the Gospels in ac c ordance with the lo c al identifications This i s some .

’

‘

’

‘

Isai ah xl 28 xliii g ii 33 ( B rooke i

Se e 7

ls o

Bq 9e Bep p a ’

o x o s x ar ao x e v

ij e OS 20 ]

PROCEE D I NG S OF THE

BRITIS H

ACAD EMY

thing more than the translator of the Syriac Version can be proved to have done His general ai m was to find the proper Aramai c equivalent of the names not to tell us with what letters the Greek s represented the Aramaic names He does not care whether the Evangelist wrote I ep oa d) vpi a or the place meant is what his c ountrymen called Uris hlem and he writes it so N o various reading is implied in Ac ts xxi 7 where for Ka rnvr fia aaev e ls Hrokeaa lfia the Syriac has we came to Acre And if our translator was per oS a 7 631; Fe aa n s uade d that the véi v was the land of the Girgashite s p p X I do not think he would scruple to write it so The view I am here advancing is that the agreement of the Old Syriac with Origen about the place names Bethabara and Girgashites or Gergesenes comes not fro m the Old Syriac following Origen but from both the Old Syriac and Origen following lo cal identifi cations I venture to think I have proved this conclusion not to be excluded by the evidence I have now to try and shew that it is not too artificial and improbable a theory to be belie v ed In the fi rst place it seems to me fair to urge that any theory which makes the Old Syriac Version dependent upon Origen is in itself improbable Apart from the eviden c e aff orded or seemed to be a fforded by these few place names the latest date assigned to the Old Syriac Version as it stands in the Sinai Palimpsest is about A D 2 00 more than a generation before Origen s commentary wa s written In style in manner in tone it is idiomatically Semiti c and far removed both from Origen s textual accuracy and his fanciful allegori z ing Further the agreement with Origen is confined to geographi cal identifi cations ; when it c omes to the etymology of Semitic names there is a great di fference Origen was not really a profound linguist and his ear for Semitic sounds seems to have been no better than that of most European tourists The Syriac tran s lator on the other hand was thoroughly skilled i n Aramaic his native language and he disc riminated between sounds whi ch Origen confused Palestinian Aramai c is of c ourse di ff erent from the Syriac of Edessa and the transcription of sounds in any language is a delicate matter but the two dialec ts have the same gutturals and the same sibilants and t o a Semite they are not easily interch anged The independence of Origen and the Syriac is best represented by a Table : the right hand c olumn gives the transmitted Syriac text while the middle c olumn gives Origen s etymologie s together with a conjectural restoration of the Semiti c words intended by him .

’

‘

’

SYRIAC FORMS OF NEW TESTAMENT NAMES Bethabara

o xos

Bethania

K ar a o k e v

ﬁ ( vi s

was m

o x os

i n a x oﬁs

( vi

NWDU n :

4 0)

”

’

4 0)

N Jll

30)

N35

n) ”

nu Bethphage

’

o xo s

m a yara u

NDE

Jordan

Ka r

dﬁ a o t s

ﬂ: ”

im 631) -

( vi

42 )

( i e no .

d¢ 9ah p os Bao dvov

Ae non

wi res 6

Sali m

76 )

v l

l j

’

( Ibid )

ﬁ f

a v wv

c wa

) 3 I

’

l ’

B r o k e, o (

l ( S) l I’ ll ( C ) ’

W DS ’

ﬁ j l p su ffi x )

’

n/ v 13 1 0) ’

Origen s explanations are themselves in sad need of elucidation Either he m isheard certain Aramaic names or he only heard them from Greek speaking persons and himself gave them his fantastic meanings B ut i f Origen were an au th ori ty at all for the Syriac translator I cannot see why he should be trusted for plac e i de nt ifi c ations and deserted for derivations Origen s derivation for Bethphage is espe c ially interesting for it is definitely Aramaic yet it is di fferent from that adopted by the Syriac Version The general inferen c e I draw is that by Origen s ti me the identifi cation of place names in the Gospels had already begun to excite some interest among Palestinian Christians themselves m ainly a G reek speaking body no t scien tifically trained in the ni c eties of Aramai c pronun c iation or grammar At any rate I venture to c laim that the theory which makes the Syriac Versions depe nd upon Origen breaks down under investigation and with it the theory that these Versions in any surviving form are later than Origen breaks down also The name of B ethp h ag e as already remarked is spelt i n the Syriac a n: the same as in the Talmud 1 m eans in Aramai c the Place of U nripe Figs and this is a far more likely derivation than oi k os n: Place of whi c h i s what Origen tells m ayo v wv ( i e d i e a us it means But Origen doe s not propose to change the spelling of Bn6 ¢ ay i in Greek so most likely his fantasti c explanation ( repeated in the Onoma s ti ca) re s ts ultimately upon a mere error of the ear for Semiti c sounds About the identification of Bethphage there can be little dispute though the exac t site may be di ffi c ult to locate It was a known plac e and Origen tells us it was a r oi ro s lep a r t o s which looks .

’

‘

PROCEE D INGS OF THE

BRITISH

ACAD EMY

a s if he wa s really indebted to Jewish lore for hi s informati o n as the n o ti ces of Bethphage in the Talmud are c onnected with the v i rtual 1 i nclu s ion of the pla ce i n the Holy City fo r c ertain purposes The identifi cation of B ethany is less certain and therefore there is more doubt about the right pronun ciation of the word Th e Syriac ’ ha s N JV fi t ) and thi s spelli ng also appears to underlie Origen s oi x os inm xofis On the other hand no plac e of thi s name is mentioned by ” ’ Jewish authorities while there is mention of a plac e c alled JTI 37 3 w hi c h may be near the site of Bethany The question i s compli cated by the gloss BnOa v la oi k o s Bo fns ( OS 1 7358 1 8 294 whi ch s eems to indi cate that a Ch ri s ti an tradition on c e existed that equated 2 ” ” ’ Bethany with D J another spelling of J Fl n ) lN [ T I do not think we are in a position to solve the question Bethany was no doubt a small and unimportant hamlet : if it really was Beth Hini then what we know about it is that it was destroyed three 3 years befo re Jerusalem was taken by Titus and most likely all lo cal knowledge of the plac e disappeared When in the fourth century the vi c torious Christians built a great church over the reputed grave of Laz arus the name Bethany having no real roo t in the soil withered away The Lady Etheria in the fifth c entury knows of B eth ani a from her Bible but on the spot she finds the plac e called L az ari u m and E l Az ari ye h it i s called to this day I venture to think therefore that the first Christian archaeologists had nothi ng to go on but the letters of BH O A N I A It is hardly surprising that with the analogy of Anathoth to help them they should have thought that AN represented ’ 31? rather than JH And after all they may be right in not c o n ne cti ng the New Testament Bnea ma with the Talmudi c Beth Hi ni If the writer of the Second Gospel was really a Je rus ale m i te he must have known the true pronunc iation of the name Greek writing does not explain to us the initial c onsonant of awe : it may equally well be N or n or i ! or 17 But the Gospel is good eviden ce that the following vowel really was a and not i or ai as it ought to have been if W7 ! was intended In short the evidence suggest s that the Syriac tran s lator and the earlie s t Christian ide nt ifi cato rs ( represented by the Onomas ti ca) had no real traditio nal e v iden c e to go upon ; at the same time it is equally in s u ffi cient to prove that the 4 pronun ciation they suggest is wrong ,

'’

’

‘

’

“

‘

’

‘

’

‘

”

1 2 3

Se e t h e

For

dis c ussi on i n N eubauer 1 47 no

Ba ba Jll ez i a 8 8

lman

1 43

Tos i f ta, Sh ebi i th

see a

s ugge st s t h at

th e nam e

f or 86 §

mmn :

D’Jm was

see

Isai ah xl

rigi nally

h ”:

N EW

SYRIAC FORMS O F

TESTAMENT

N AMES

The spelling of fo ur other place names in the Syriac Gospels rais e c onsiderations of general interest These are Gennes areth N az areth Cana of Gal ilee and B e thes da -

is a fertile distri c t in Galilee that sometimes gives i t s name to the Sea of Tiberias It is variously spelt Fe vvna ap er Fev I c and but our Syria texts ha v e withou e vv n a t v no a ed D W J J p p variation vo c ali z ed Genas ar in the Peshitta No true Old Latin M S 1 has eth or et at the end of the word ’ Our Jewish authorities give us in the Talmud WD 33 in th e 2 Targums while Josephus and 1 Mac c abees ( xi 6 7 ) have Fevvna dp The Syriac spelling therefore is vindi cated as c orrect for an Aramaic document But when we ask what is the genuine spelling in th e Greek Gospels the answer is not so easy Gennesaret is so familiar a word to us that we reali z e with di ffi culty that it is conﬁned to the non western text of the Synopti c Gospels For that very reason it i s probably genuine there The odd thing about the matter is that it is the Western authorities including the Old Latin that present the spelling which seems to be in ﬂuenced either by lo cal knowledge or knowledge of Josephus It looks as if the longer form had altogether disappeared for a time from the text of the G ospels and then been reintroduced possibly by Origen It woul d satisfy the general literary c onditions if we supposed that Genne s aret belonged originally to Mark alone — a peculiar form belonging to the Evangelist who owes least to literary tradition O n this hypothesis Mark s G ennesaret was changed to G e nne sar by the more literary Evangelists Luke and Matthew Harmonisti c corruption would then cause the rarer form Gennesaret to drop out of Mark while at a later date it was re introduced into the Gree k text of all three G ospel s But I cannot say that the textu al eviden ce at all points direc tly to the longer form being more charac teristic o f Mark than of the other Evangelists D almanutha ( M k viii 1 0) i s not a real parallel for that word never found any acceptance in the other Gospels A nearer parallel may possibly be found in Naz areth Gennesa reth

‘

r r

’

‘

’

The name N az areth is connected with more than one insolubl e problem In the Greek Gospels the name is spelt sometimes N a § ap é € sometimes N a fap er while in Matt iv 1 3 L k iv 6 we ﬁnd N a gap ci in .

’

M k vi 5 3 a is not rea lly an e x ce pti on Th e et is want e d to b e gi n v e r 5 4 s o th at .

5‘

i t h as g e nne z alre tc ume x i s ls e n tde na lui t h e a c h e t yp e m ust h av e e ad Gennez a r .

et 2

C orre s p ondi ng to t h e B ibli cal

W 133

N um

xxxiv

1 1 , Jos

xiii

BRITISH

PROCEE DI N G S OF THE

ACAD EMY

the best authorities both Greek and Latin Neither o f these verses i s taken from Mark while they a re histori cally parallel to one another It is therefo re a legitimate inferen c e that the statement of our Lord s settlement at this town was taken by Matthew and by Luke from Q the non Markan source that the name of the town was gi ven in Q and that it was there spelt N a fo p a We have then N az aret or for Mark and az ara for Q z a re th N N a ) ( The Syriac text s without exception have 11 333 vocali z ed N arra th in th e Peshitta The adj e ctives N a fap nvo s and N a p atag are ren d ered by N’WEJ In a cc ordan c e with this identi fi cation the acc epted s ite of N az areth is c alled y u to day and the Moslems call a C hristian N ae rcm i ( pl N ayara) Nevertheless there are di ffi c ulties in this identification The first Naz arene The fact is that in hardly any a nd gravest is the z in 1 We are a ccus o ther instan c e does Greek f stand for Semiti c 3 t o m e d to the representation of 2 by z in English be c ause it is done in the Authori z ed Version of the Old Testament But this z is really made in Germany : it is the German 3 to be pronounced like ts a nd it was first used by the German Reu c hlin the friend of Erasmus to imitate the sound which his Jewish teachers used Before Re uch li n s t ime the universal tran s literation of 2 was simple 8 both in Greek The di fference between the an c ient and the Renaissan c e a nd in Latin s ystem is best illustrated to English people by the name of the c ity of D avid which is Zion in the Old Testament but Si o n in the New Now whether we accept the T estament and in the Prayer Book f orm N a § ap é r or N a fap d the sec ond consonant of the Semitic e q u i v a n o t s a de ( It n Or putti g it the other way if l ent ought to be z ai n ( T ) ) or if the Je ws were right in c alling t h e name of the town were ’ ’ o f the to wn should then the name C hristians D Tfi lj ( Taan f h ave been written N a o ap e r or N a ap d It should not be forgotten that o ur Greek Gospels are some two generations earlier than any surviving m onument of Semiti c Christianity A cc ording to the A cts Christians w ere on c e called members of the se c t of the N az orae ans ( c 1; N a p a ca y) a nd we know that in later times a Sem iti c speaking s e c t o f Christians w as c alled by this name U nfortunately we do not know h o w these The p ersons wrote their name in their own Aramai c vernac ular T almudi c passage quoted above ( Gemara of R J oh anan) is later than t h e Old Syriac Version Te rtull ian s referen c e to Jew s c alling C hristians lVaz a raei or JVaz a reni is c onne cted by that Father with Lam iv 7 and the N az i ri tes i e with the W WW) .

’

‘

’

‘

’

‘

’

Se e App e ndix I I I f or

d e tails

PROCEE D INGS OF THE

BRITISH

ACAD EM Y

arisen from a literary error I mean this that we ought to consider the possibility that the c ity of Joseph and Mary the wa rp i s of Jesu s was Ch oraz i n I do not suppo s e the adj e ctive Naz arene to have been originally derived f rom Choraz in This adj ective in the two forms N a fap nvo s ( Mk ) and N a p a to s ( Matt Joh Acts ; L k having both ) is better attested than the name of the town from whi ch it is c ommonly derived It is di ffi cult not to thin k that Jesus was called the Naz arene or the N az orae an : what is doubtful is the meaning of the term It is no t ea sy to understand the form N a p ai o s in any c ase but th e di ffi c u lty is greater if we have to make it an adj e c tive denoting an inhabitant of Na z ara or Na z areth After c onsideri ng the matter from various points of view it s eem s to me most probable that the word is really c onne cted with T l) and the v o w of the Naz irites Of c ourse Jesus was not a legal Naz irite whatever John the Baptist may have been fo r He drank wine That He did not s cruple to t o u c h an apparently dead body prove s nothing for the daughter of Jairus came to life agai n Moreover the saying Let the dead bury their dead actually expresses an integral part of the Naz irite s enfo rc ed freedom from certain so cial ? n obligatio s Is i t not possible that N az orae an was a ni c kname It might c on c eivably m ean this odd sort of Naz arite — one who c alls for repentan c e and yet eats and drinks like other folk Matt ( xi 1 9 L k vii The true origin of ni c knames is ea s ily lost and it may have been s u pp o sed that the name referred to some place in Galilee It should be noticed that most of the c onsonants o f o az e m reappear in re v erse order in N az a e e x p p It is a desperate c onj ecture and I would no t make it were i t no t that the ordinary vie w of Na z areth seems to me wholly unproved and unsatisfactory And the m o st unproved and least satisfac tory part of the ordinary view is that part of it whi c h is attested by the Syriac Versions whereby the z i s made to repre s ent a Sem iti c 3C ,

’

’‘

‘

’

‘

’

‘

’

‘

Cana

of Galilee is mentioned four time s in the Fourth G os p e l and has been vari o u s ly identiﬁed But in the Syriac it becomes W and this in the constant tradition of the Syriac Vulgate is vocali z ed 2 There i s no variation in the Greek whi ch is moreover Kai ne treated by the Evangeli s t as fem sing (e l s rip; Kauai Joh i v l

“

ii 1 1 1 ; i v 4 6 ; xxi 2 Th i s is t h e v ocali zat i on i t would h av e if i t we re th e e m ph ati c pl ural p art i c ipl e activ e and accordi ng ly s om e M S S of th e P e shi tta sp e ll i t wi th th e pl ural p oi nts 1

Joh

of a

SYRIAC FORMS OF N EW TESTAMENT NAMES

This change of Ka rainto [ f ame cannot b e expl ained on palaeographi c al or linguistic grounds : the words are really as distin c t as Ptolemai s and A cre and I think we must infer that the Syriac word represents a deliberate geographical identification U nfortunately neither this identification nor the ordinary one c an be made out with c ertainty The marriage throne of the bride and bridegroom at Cana three miles from D io cae s are a on whi ch in the \ ear 5 7 0 or thereabouts Antoninus of Placentia s c ratched his family 1 name has disappeared and the Syria c Kama is almost equally hard to find Katana near D amas cus is too far away and pos s ibly the pla c e meant is JN RQ the Bibli cal Kattath (N eubauer But P thi s hardly explains the odd vocali z ation We are not however direc tly con cerned with the actual site The important thing in our investigation is that the variation between the name of Cana of Galilee as written in G reek and as represented in Syriac suggests a geographi c al identi fi cation Such an i de nt i fi ca tion could hardly have been made by a Christian s c holar staying at home i n Edessa and we must infer that the translator himself or the source from whi c h he derived his geographical theories must have bee n a Palestine Pilgrim ,

’

Round the nam e of B e thes da many c ontroversies have raged both topographi cal and textual The latest and certainly one of the most interesting studies of the questions regarding it is that by D r Rendel Harris in his book c alled Si de L ig h ts on N ew Tes ta 2 — — men t Res earch pp 36 5 1 and 7 0 7 6 I shall not attempt to touch upon all the points raised except in so far as they relate to the subj ect immediately before us which is the authority of the Syriac Bibli cal tradition The Bethesda question is twofold there is a doubt c oncerning the site and a doubt con c erning the name As for the site excavations near the church of S Anne in the north eas t corner of Jerusalem not far from where our topo graphical authorities place the Sheep gate mentioned by Nehemiah have brought to light the Pool whi c h in the early days of Christian archaeology was identified with the r p oflan x ij o vyBfiOp a mentioned in Joh v 2 and in the Onomas tica It was th is Pool that was seen by the Bordeaux Pilgri m i n A D 333 and i n certain other ways it satisfies the data very well B ut this Pool is in the quarter of Jerusalem called Be z et h a by Josephus and as several very ancient ,

’

‘

’

‘

I ti ne ra Sancta 1 6 1

m eorum 2

i pso

s c ri p s i .

Ang us Le ct ure s f or 1 9 08

bi t a

ac cu

ub i

ego

i ndig n us

nom na

p are nt um

PROCEE D INGS OF THE

BRITISH

ACA D EMY

authorities spell the name in the Gospel c a ed instead of B ethes da it is almost an irresistible inference that Bq § a 6 d ( or something like it) is the true reading There is some doubt about the s pelling of Be z et h a in Josephus : a more accurate expression therefore for our c on c lusion will be that Josephus and the Evangelist i ntend to give the same name The m ost puz z ling part of the eviden ce is that Josephus seems 1 to tell us that Be z e th a means K ai no p ol i s or New Town This is really quite impossible The best attested spelling is Be fe ed Now between two vowels must stand for Semiti c z a i n and there is no 2 in New or Town whether we try Hebrew or Aramai c B eth H a( d)th a has been suggested but this does not mean New Town It does not even mean New House or The New House ; if it m eans anything it means The House of the N e w Man B eth literally House is used i n the c onstru c t state before nouns to mean The Place of as i n B eth Phagg e i e The Plac e of U nripe Figs But it is not so used before ordinary adj ec tives Neither in A ramai c nor in Engli s h is New House synonymous with New Town And when we c ome to the a ctual words of Joseph us we ﬁnd that he does not quite say that the Greek for Bez eth a is Ka wi) woM s He says ,

’

‘

’

‘

’

‘

’

‘

’

‘

’

‘

’

B J V 4 , 2 ( N i es e

é k h ﬁdn5 é m xwp lws Be fe ed rd v e 6 x r w rov pcé p o s , A A o a n é t s, i 6 e c r v you S oo K a i w ) o y p ’

’

6 p e dep uuv ev ouevov '

’

m ig h t

translate it so but perhaps another phras e would be better In B J ii 1 9 4 he seems to distinguish between Bez eth a and his ) K ai r ? K ai no p ol i s (T7511 7 6 B np oo ayop ev op ev nv Kai rip) Ka wono K aAoﬂ p e vov o cé v dyOp dv) Professor D alman ( Gram p 1 1 5 ) connects the name with BiKé O h B t z c a h 1 l e B e e t e h e Ma c vii a pla e also spelt B 6 a and c c n § ( g and he supposes the name to mean Plac e of Olive s ( NW T But i t s eems to me on the whole best to take a hint from a pre v ious senten ce to the above quoted passage from the Jewish War Jo s ephus say s des cribing the hills of Jerus al em ( I bid = N i es e v 1 49 ) .

’

‘

’

‘

’

r e ra

ov r p

’

‘

ﬁ

n ep tmx nd va t

Adcj mv 6 9

AeEra c Bs ge da, '

’

lnev os ué v

cw n xp )

a fourth crest and cu t of from it by a deep moat 2 But does not this sugge s t a derivation ? Is it no t possible that Be fe ed or a a ed stands for NDQT the B i e bits cut o ff or possibly NDQI Q the bit cut o ff Avrwv la s d wo r e uv o ue v o s 6 3 dp ﬁypi ar t whi ch is called B ez etha, situated opposite Antonia

ij s

’

‘

’

‘

1 9 , 4 ; BJ

Th e re was his vi ct i m s 2

g reat

4, 2

p it

N i es e or

tan

k (gbp

’

Be z eth

’

wh e re B acchid e s

ﬂung

SYRIAC FORMS OF N EW TESTA MENT NAMES

whether w e take this or regard Be z e th as the old name of an outlying village now become part of the town or suppose that the name means Plac e of Olives we do not in any case come to Be thes da This the most familiar for m of the na me to us is with one signiﬁcant exception not supported in any of the authorities by which modern criti c al editors are generally in fluenced It is not in the Onomas tica which have a a ed in Greek and B ethsai da in Latin It is not in B ( Bnem aa) in N ( e nema) in D in the genuine Old Latin ( B ez a th a Betz a ta B elz a tka B etz e tha) or the Vulgate B h a id a The Egyptian versions also with the text of the e t s ) ( H arclean and the Ethiopic have Bethsaida spelt like the city of Andrew and Peter The supporters of e nem as are the vast maj ority of G reek MSS z including of course A and C the G othici ing revised Latin texts ) ( and and all the Syria c versions except the text of the H arcle an f g It is also in the Armenian where the spelling ( B eth heada) makes it pretty certain that it has been deri ved from a Syriac sourc e For Bethesda are the By z antine tradition and the authority of the Syriac ; ag ai ns t Bethesda are the ancient Versions ( except the Syriac ) local tradition and the most ancient and trusted Greek MSS Such a division of the evidence is not only unfavourable to B ethes da ; it makes it very likely that the Old Syriac Version which is the one really ancient authority that supports this reading i s also the sourc e of it We are dealing with probabilities and by the nature of the case we cannot hope to do more than fram e a hypothesis which will c over the fa c ts of the case and be consistent with the pheno mena of other various readings and unlikely forms of Proper N ames My hypothesis then is that a a dd was the form written by the Evangelist that this became extensively corrupted to Bnoga eé Bnt fa ed & c and also widely assimilated to B ethsaida The Syriac translator on the other hand whatever of these form s may have been before his eyes thought that House of Mercy was not far o ff and so wrote B e th Hes da The Martyr Lucian or whoever else is the real 1 foster father of the Antiochian Byz antine text may very likely have had Bethsaida i n the text that lay before him this was a manifest geographical blunder and needed corre ction and the correction that was chosen was derived from the Syriac tradition The whole question is in certain ways parallel to the question of Naz areth In both c ases we have a current tradition now in vogue about the names a tradition which is unsatisfactory in the light But

’

‘

’

‘

’

Th e te x t

ll e d

K b y v on

S od e n

P ROCEE DINGS OF THE

BRITISH

A CAD E M Y

of the earlie s t eviden c e In the c ase of Naz areth it is the sele ction of a site in the case of Bethesda it is the form of a name In both cases by far the oldest witness to the unsatisfac tory c urrent tradition i s the anc ient Syriac Version I do not believe these Syriac names have any more authority than Joaras h for Jairus or Kama for Cana ; the only di ff eren c e is that the former pair found favour at the end of the fourth century among the Greeks and the latter pair did not .

’

It will be c on venient to notice here certai n Syria c forms of Proper Names that for various reasons need some eluc idation ’ ’ 1 The Elamites of Acts 1 1 9 are rendered N J7N ( Alanayé ) in P This is not an irregular transliteration of but means the Alans a barbarous people mentioned by Pliny ( vi 2 6 ) in c onnexion with the K u rds and by the D ialogue D e Fa to ( h 3 ) in c onnexion with the regions north of Pontus The name of the Elamites was no doubt taken by S Luke from the Old Testament but a Mesopo tamian translator would kno w that they were extin ct as the D ruids and so he chose a more m odern name from the same sort of region as an eq uivalent In exac tly the same spirit D e Sacy s Arabi c translates the Parthians by of ‘ ‘ i e K urds 2 Bar Jesus the name of the Magus in Acts xiii 6 is variou s ly spelt in important Western texts so tha t the original reading is some what doubtful In P ND3W fl) ( B a rs hu ma ) is given as an equivalent The meaning of B ars h uma is not kno wn : what is known i s that it was an old family name i n Edessa where it appears on the pre 1 Christian grave of NDl W WD l fi : 3 17 ( i e Stella daughter of Bar 1 shuma ) I do not suppose we c an re construc t the Greek wo rd whi ch suggested Barsh u m a to the Syriac translator any more than we c ould rec over E) anei r a i from the Alans in Acts 1 1 9 ’ 3 Matthias in A c ts i 23 2 6 is transliterated N nn in P So far as I know there is no variation in the name in Greek or Latin except that some anc ient MSS have M a 06 ca v instead of M ac a v But in Syriac the case is di fferent Ap h raa te s 1 5 0 ( D emons tr iv 6 ) call s 1 ’ him b 7 lfl and this name is substituted for Matthias wherever it o ccurs in the Syriac Version of E useb i us s H is tory It is evident that .

’

‘

’

k e t his op p ortun i ty of s ugge sti ng t h at th e di fﬁ cul t word i n l i ne 3 re ad d a i u rf b y Sach au may b e an i ll c ut ( t i n t-C Th e ﬁ rst four li ne s w ill t h e n run : ( 1 ) I I u bath Bars h um a ( 2) h av e m ad e f or m ys e lf t his t om b ( 3) I b eg of t h e e wh oever e ls e e n te rs ( 4 ) h e re not t o m ov e m y b one s and t h e sarc oph ag us I as s ume th at ” V is th e ab s state of Nnl v t h e nam e o f a c e rtai n S tar o r C onst e llat i o n ( Job i x 1

ZI ) M G

xxxvi

164

‘

’

‘’

SYRIAC FORMS OF N EW TESTAMENT NAMES

this is no mere palaeographical error but that the Old Syriac Versi o n ’ ’ of the Acts must have had D7)n also This name o ccurs as O ok op ai os i n Josephus (Ant xx and is of c ourse the second part of the name ‘ Bartholomew An ob s c ure name ”D511 does o cc ur in Judges and ’ ’ Samuel but D73fl is nothing more than Ptolemy in a Semitic disgu i s e W h y the Old Syriac of A c ts should ( see Levy N eu H ebr D i et 8 have represented Matthias by this name cannot now be ascertained 4 Mal c hus in Joh xviii 1 0 is rendered 5h ( M alé k) in P but 1 ( EM aleku ) in S The word o cc urs in S at the end of a line so that it is not quite c ertain that an B may not be lost i n the margin : in that case S would present a mere com monplac e transliteration of M dAXo s But as the name appears to be treated as a Semiti c one in P it is more likely that D S D is the true reading in whi ch case we have an interesting parallel to G ashmu the Arabian m entioned 2 in Neh vi 6 BS D ( i e call ) is a very c ommon Palmyrene name ( Cook Aramai c G los s a ry p 73 where however vol 7 is a mispri nt for vol 6 and is a woman s name ) 5 Finally as bearing upon the general sociological equipment o f the Syriac translator it should be noti c ed that the technical Jewish ’ term j fi lflJD ( Sanhedri n) is never used to render o vve Bp w v e v en when it m ight have been not inappropriate In Matt x 1 7 S P the te chnical " ’ Jewish term for the local Jewish Court i s correctly given ( N3 l h J 3 but even in Acts xxii 30 77 6 1 7 5 a v ve fip cov is only rendered B eth di n) ’ i e all the assembly of their Heads fl 71 53 D W i W W N WJ j I imagine the translator was only a cquainted with the provin c ial Phylac teries and Beth dins he Judaism of U pper Mesopotamia knew but the parts of the Jewish organi z ation that c ame to an end wi th the D estru ction of Jerusalem were as unfamiliar to hi m as to the rest of the Gentile world ,

‘

’

;

’

‘

It is now time to sum up the main results of these s c attered observations I shall attempt to do so in a series of propositions ( 1 ) The translator of the Syri ac Version aimed at giving the vernacular equivalent of the N e w Testament Proper Names rather than a transliteration of the Greek Examples : Acre for Ptolemais Ala ns for Elamites .

I n

M att viii

3 th olome us

o cc u

Bart h ol ome w 34 : i t wou ld b e i nte re s ti ng 1 ( f or

d oub t 173 W} c orre sp onds t o wh e nce n d e rive d th e s pe lli ng rocem 2 Th e S yri ac sh ou ld b e v oca li z e d B eth Pl ace of th e j udge s dayydne ( i e 2

di ne,

wi th

G wi l l iam

’

M as 3, .

k now

not B eth

PROCEE D INGS OF THE

BRITISH

ACAD EMY

( 2 ) Wherever po s sible the forms of the Names in the Syriac Ne w Te s tament are assimilated to those in the Syriac Old Testament ,

( Peshitta) whi c h is earlier and normative for the Syriac

New

Testa m ent Examples : Sehyti n for Sion Yes hu for Jesus 3 When the Old Testament failed the Syriac is sometime s ( ) demonstrably wrong Example : Yoaras h for Jairns 4 A c onnexion between the Syria c translator and Origen is to b e ( ) noted but it is by way of agreement in identifi cation c ombined with disagr eement in etymology Examples : B eth a bara and B ethp h ag e ( 5 ) The c onnexion is to be explained by the rise of local Palestinian Christian traditions fostered by the rise of Christian pilgrimage Examples Gerg esenes and again B ethaba ra ( 6 ) Some Syriac identifi c ations never in fl uenced non Syriac Christian tradition This demonstrates the existence of a certain independen ce in the Syriac identifications Example : K ayne for Cana ( 7 ) In other cases the Syriac identification is the oldest evidence for the m odern and incorrect theory and in some c ases may have been the parent of tha t theory Exam ples N as ra th for Naz areth B e thhes da for Be z ath a Now that a dire c t dependen c e of the Syriac New Testament 8 ) ( u pon Origen is ex c luded we are free to date the work in conformity with all the other indications i e in the last quarter of the se c ond It is thus the earliest surviving m o nument of th e c entu ry A D reviving interest whi ch Christians were beginning to take in the Holy Places This lessens its value for textual criti cism as the translato r becomes to a c ertain extent a c ritic rather than a witness W hen m inutely examined the Syriac Version even in its oldest form shews like all other monuments of Christianity the great chasm that separates the second c entury Christian Church from Palestinian life before the D estruction of Jerusalem The only bridge across this great c hasm is the Greek text of the New Testament itself Naturally I do not wish to deny the c ontinuity of Catholi cism with the first preaching of the Christian Gospel but the c ontinuity with the Fathers of old time to whi ch the Catholic Churc h of the second century j ustly attached so mu ch weight was c onnected with ideas and not with tangible antiquities It is possible for theologian s to have very di fferent notions of the deposit whi ch Timothy was charged so carefully to guard but quite c ertainly it did not inclu de .

‘

’

‘

’

PROCEE D INGS OF

T H E BRITISH

ACAD EMY

ob s erved about a s pirating or not aspirating the preceding consonant and these rules are our only safe guide To take the case of H ebre w first Here mediaeval Latin and English spelli ngs tell us nothing at all and unfortunately there is no i nstan ce either in the Old or N e w Testament where Efi p ai os stands immediately a ft er a mutable c onsonant But Westc ott and Hort appear to have forgotten all about the Gospel according to the Hebrews 7 6 « ad E/3p alov s Ebayyek i ov So far a s I know x a r EBp a lov s ne v er o cc urs : certainly Ka G Efl ov s is the spelling of the a l p MSS in Eusebius H E iii 2 5 2 7 iv 2 2 and in Origen i n Joan ii 1 2 1 c This surely is de isi ve evidence in favour of the rough breathing Ag abus has been equally unlu c ky I do not know h o w Westcott and Hort came to thin k that this name began in Syriac with $7 or why the statement has been so often repeated e g by Blass in his edition of the A c ts the fact being that the name in Syriac is written both in Acts xi 2 8 and in xxi 1 0 l N ” K ( Dlfl ) W Sin c e the name ends in D) i e sin c e the Greek termination i s transliterated into Syriac we m u st infer that the Syriac translator did not regard the name as rec ogni z ably Semiti c ; in other word s he give s us no opinion as to its derivation (” R d is simply a trans literation of araBoc and tells us nothing as to the breathing we ought to prefix to the word If o n quite other grounds we thin k araBoc c orresponds to 3 37 1 j ust as ap er ac c orresponds to H ari th a w e may prefix a rough breathing but the Syriac eviden ce tells us nothi ng except that our proposed derivation was not obvio u s in an c ient times The decision between Alp h aeus and H alp haeu s is les s clear Here the Syriac v ersions now reinforc ed by the Sinai Palimpsest ha v e z ed This really does i mply that the word is recogni l i a a H p a s Semiti c not only because of the initial guttural but also be cause the Greek termination is dropped It may further h e remarked that the Greek name be c omes i n Syriac m a fi d d ( Eus M art P ales t i ) The name H alp ai does not certainly o ccur in Jewish sourc e s ” p 5 8 d ites fro j K idd but this is not the 1 4 2 c D alman ( m 5 7 W ) name of a Rabbi The word seems to mean c ontroversialist ’ Moreover in b Taan 2 1 a it appears as NBSN However as there is no sign of a various reading in the New Testament the authority of the Syriac may in this c a s e s tand qua ntu m va leat and we may c ontinue to write Ah qba i o s ,

‘

’

‘

’

‘

’

Un d e

s d f or

u e

‘

r th e i nﬂuenc e

EBp aZ o s i n th e

s m ooth bre athi ng h as be e n LX X and th e O xford Concord ance t o th e LX X I

stcott

Camb rid ge

and

H ort

th e

SYRIAC FORMS OF NEW TESTAMENT

C A PE RN A UM

CA PH A RN A UM

N AMES

i s well kn o wn that the Tex tus Recep tas of the N e w Testament has Ka n e p v a ofip while all critical editions spell the word Ka¢ ap These names are the subj ect of a study by Profes s or E N estle v a ozi p in a Festschrift for Theodor Zahn ( Leip z ig 1 9 08 pp 25 1 which like all Nestle s work is packed full of curious and recondite informa tion Nestle points out that Ka wep vaofiu is attested by the great mass of Greek MSS Ka ¢ ap va owp by N B D and also by practically all the Versions The Syria c has p a n -3m and Nestle conj ectures that t he two forms arose from di fferent pronunciations of this It i s well kno wn that the East Syrians pronounced 5 hard ( i e hard for Semites ) : if then as: was really a monosyllabi c form and if the Eas t Syrians pronounced the word K ayr then Kawep va oup might have arisen from the East Syrian form Nestle is quite right in saying that the ancient Syriac Versions c annot be claimed as witnesses to decide bet ween 71 and (p as they use A indi ff erently for both Bu t the other part equally essential theory breaks down on investigation o f his ingenious The East Syrian pronun c iation of the name is yam s m i e Kp ar N a hum not K ayr N This is not only the reading of o r K ha r N a h um p the U rmi editi o n s and those founded upon them : I have ascertained that p o u nd i i ; is the reading of the Nestorian Masora i e RM Add 1 2 1 38 one of the most c areful and accurate MSS ever written Further the pla c e c alled n n 153 in Josh xviii 2 4 is called in the U rmi Bible d a m n; 1 5 3 It is therefore evident that the e in Ka wep va ovn is definitely rej e c ted by the East Syrian tradition This brings the matter back where it was Bu t on general ground s it was not likely that the solution of thi s c urious problem would The main fac ts are that Kam p c o me from beyond the Euphrates is attested by what D r Hort calls the Antiochian text while Ka¢ ap i s atte s ted by all others It is a natural inferen c e that the p ro nunci ati o n of the Greek speaking population of the Antio c hian D r N estle district may have something to do with the matter quotes Th eo dore t for Ka wep o av a and Th e o do re t i s c ertainly a witness for fourth to fi fth c en tury Antio chian fashions which is exa ctly w hat i s wanted U sing then Syrian in the sense used by Hort i e not for that which is Aramai c but for what is characteristic o f the G reek speaking district of which A ntio c h was the capital we may after all agree with Nestle that in the prevalen c e of the spelling I

’

‘

PROCEE DINGS OF THE

BRITI SH

ACAD EMY

in Greek MSS of the Gospels we may see eine der dass der s tarks te n Be s ta ti u n e n der Theorie von W estcott Hort g g Tex tus recep tas die Frucht einer syri s chen Re z ension ist i

K a m p v am p

‘

III

G REE K

H EBRE W 2

FO R

Greeks habitually represe nted Se mitic 2 by simple B eside s words like ELO D for 12 2 which is after al l an exclusively Biblical and Je wish name we have Ecocé v for and Edp e m a for fl5 fl2 No rule however is without apparent exceptions and in view of the i mportance of the statement made above ( p 1 6 ) that i n hardly any instance Greek 5 stands for Semiti c 2 it is worth while to examine the names in the Greek Bible ( besides Naz areth in whi ch g i s apparently so used In all there appear to be ten Takin g them in their most fa miliar E nglish form and in t h e o rder of the English alphabet we have 1 Adoni z e deh ( Jo s h x Am ( e Bé ( Aq Sym m Th e od ) Here the L X X has dBws e fe K i e the Greek Bible 73 078 P reads D ” JWN as in Judges i 5 if This reading seems to have been P c orrected t o agree with the Hebre w in Origen s Hexapla with the least possible change of the traditional c onsonants Josephus ha s dm Be fe x o s It should be noti c ed that Melchi z edek is never spelt i n Greek with f either in the Old o r the N e w Testament E z ra xiii This is the name of the land where 2 Arz are th the Ten Tribes went according to the Latin text of 4 E z ra It appear s to denote some region beyond the sources of the Euphrate s and against all probability it ha s been explained as l fi nN f lN t o agree with D eut xxix 2 8 Not only is the equation of z and 2 highly contentious : besides that it is very doubtful whether the word really ended i n areth at all as the Syriac has « 1 s sn i f f Certainly this word t h e earth c an K A i K fl i e Arz ap h the end o f do very little to prove that the f in N a fap e e c orre s ponds to 2 The rock Boz ez ( V2 13 ) is spelt Baz e c 3 B oz ez ( 1 Regn xiv in B and p a g e in Lu cian Presumably the Greek read rt: for r m) The grandson of Judah ( pus h ) i s spelt 4 H ez ron ( Ruth i v in the NT Genealogies In the OT we find Ea p <6 v Besides these E § p <6v Ao p a p A rp a$v and in Josephus A<m a p c6v o cc urs in the L uciani c text of Ruth i v 1 8 a text whi c h here rest s TH E

‘

’

‘

’

‘

’

SYRIAC FORMS OF NEW TESTAMENT NAM ES

upon two minuscules and E Cp a$p occurs in L k iii 33 E i e in an inferior U n c ial of the 8 th century There can be little doubt that these spell ings have nothing whate v er to do w ith the writers of the 1 s t century A D the brother of Buz i s s pelt i n 5 H uz ( Gen x x u 2 1 1 Chr 1 Hebrew Y W the sa me name as the land of U z where Job lived The land of U z in the Greek Bible is the XoSp a a i d i n g while in Genesis we find ( I f and in Chronicles S23 Joseph us has 0 650 9 But the L u ci ani c text has Q f for Genesis and O i f for Chronicles This agai n is surely nothing more than a mediae v al v ariant in an unfamiliar barbarous word 6 D uke M i bz a r of Edom ( Gen xxxvi 4 2 1 Chr 1 5 3) is spelt N a gap in the G reek but M a B dp al s o oc curs The Hebrew is 1 2 373 7 A nam e cooaz see m s to o cc ur in 1 Chr x x v i 1 4 B where the ” Hebre w h as m Here A ha s “mac r 8 Za lmu nna K ing of Midian ( Judge s viii 5 iii Psalm lxxxiii appea rs in the Gree k Bible as S a Ana vd or E eh ua v é But Zeba and Zalmunna ( 1737352 ) 77 31) are c alled by Josephus Z eBrw Ka t Zap p ov v nv I s it too fanciful to suppose that in this instance ( Anti q v Josephus mo dified the nam e for the s ake of alliteration 9 Zam ces ( E z ra A i 38 ) corresponds to the M N” of 2 Chr xxxvi 4 It is c on ceivable that there may ha v e been in the Sem iti c original a mention of Zedekiah but the te x t i s doubtful as B has ZA I O N and the Latin Za ra ce le m and Za ch a r ia m P These nine instances appear to me to be of 11 0 importance at all Th e ca se is di ff erent with re s pe c t to the remaining one 1 0 Zoa r the city near the D ead Sea where Lot took refuge in Hebre w 1372 It is mentioned ele v en times in all In eight of these ( Gen xiv 2 8 xix 22 2 3 30 bi s ; D eut xxxi v 3 ; Isai x v 5 ) the Greek Bible has Efiywp a transliteration whi ch points to a v ocali z ation di fferent from the Massoreti c cf Josh xv Further the use of y for 2 is characteristic of the earlier Greek transliterations But besides Efiywp we find in Gen xiii 1 0 Je re m xxxi ( xl v iii ) 4 Zoyop a and in Je re m xxxi ( xlviii ) 34 Zoyop This is somethi ng more than a transcriber s mistake It is clear that there must ha v e been a definite reas on for spelling the name of this town w ith Z No doubt the reas on was that Zoar was a known plac e spelt Zodp a or d Eusebius ( GS 231 ) says p a by Ptolemy ( v i Kao p e vn referring to Gen xiv 2 BaAa if 30 7 1 Etycé p r ii v Zw op c Kat e Z Further there was a spe cial reas on why s é n v ii v o ei r a c thi s town should be spelt with Z We know from G en xix that ’

‘

”

’

‘

’

‘

’

PROCEE D INGS OF THE

BRITISH

A C AD EMY

the name was s upposed t o mean Littleham o r Littleborough a i v fiv Ae e r a t o é n K a h ofim and Josephus s ays o f it Zwa K p y yap oij r s EBp a Zo c T5 dM yo v Now though 7 and 2 do not i ndis criminately or regularly interchange yet one or two roots c ontai n i ng the s e letter s — do i nterchange and any amis one $ 22 is one of the words for little in Hebrew while i n Jewi s h Aramai c it i s T V? and in Syriac When therefore Josephus says that Zw ip means 7 5 6 Myov it 0171 is Aramai c rather than Bibli cal Hebre w that he has i n mind and very likely he k new of the town o f ZwOp d as the form found in the Jerusalem Targum to Gen xi v and xix and also in the Jerusalem ( i e Pale s tinian ) Talmud Somewhat similarly the root U is used in Syriac ( not in Pales P tinian Aramai c ) instead of 1 2 s o that e g the a bov x ai o c appear P ’ regularly in the Syriac vers i ons as N fi i But this i s an exclusively P Syriac form and does not o cc ur e v en in the Christian Pale s tl m an — c ip a do not really form diale ct Thus the names o f Zoa1 an isolated exception t o the rule that Greek Z doe s not correspond to Semitic 2 The eviden c e rather suggests that in histori cal times this town was known by an Aramaic name rather than by the o l d H e b rae o Canaanite one ( 1 22 by which it is called in the Old ) Testament It is possible that the more modern Aramaic name had on c e a footing in the Old Testament itself and that this stage is reflected by the Greek B ible in whi ch po s sibly EnyoSp correspon ds to WW while ZoyOp a represents 19 1 This peculiar case is a very s lender foundation for supporting the theory that in N a § ap é 0 or N a gap d the second c onsonant c orresponds to a s ade and not t o a z ai n ’

‘

’

‘

’

‘

’

I N D EX Dal manuth a 1 5 , 1 7

Ab add on 7

D ul e 2

Abi a 8 Ab rah am 2 Acre , s e e P t ol e mais Adoni z e de k 28 Ae non 1 3 Agab u s 2 5 26 Al ans , s e e El am i te s Alph ae u s 5 , 25 , 26 Annas 6 Arabi a 6 Arabs 6 Are ta s 8 Arz are th 28 Az ot us 8

E l am i te s 22 23

G ad are ne s 1 0 n G az a 8 G e nne sare t 8 1 5 G e rar 1 0 11 G e ras e ne s 1 0 n G e rg e se ne s , G i rgashi te s G e t hs e mane 8 G ush am G ash m u 23 11 ,

H agare ne s 1 0 n H e b re w H e b e r 25 f H e zron 28 H osanna 5 .

Barabbas 6 Bar-Je s us , Bars h uma 22

H uz 29

Barsabb as 6

B a t h ol om e

w 23

B e e lz e b ub 4 B e th abara 4 9 f 1 3 24 Be th any 4 1 3 1 4 B et h e sd a 1 9 f 24 B ethl e h em Se ri eh 1 7 n B e thph age 6 1 3 24 B e t hsaid a 6 9 1 7 Be ath a se e B et h e sda ,

Be z e th 20

s ee

Bars h uma

Jac ob 2

rus Jai r 7 22 Je rus al e m 4 1 2

Jai

Je s us , Je s u 6 Job e l s ee O b e d Jopp a 8

Jord an 1 3

B oan erge s 1 7 B oaz 8 B oze z 28

Josh ua 6 L ydd a 8

Cai ap h as 5 9 Cana 1 8 f 2 2 Canaanite Cananaean 5 Cap e rnaum 1 7 27 f Ce ph as 5 Ch oraz i n 6 l 7 f Ch uz a 6 ,

saac 2

M al ch u s 23 M attath a 8 M atthi as s e e Th ol omae us M e l c hiz e d e k 28 M e s op otam i a 4 M e ssi ah 6 ,

Mib z ar 29

IN D E X N ai n 8

za a 1 6 N aza re ne N az orae an 1 6 N az re th 1 5 f 2 1 2 4 Na

N az

i ri te s

S apphi ra 6 S are p ta 28 S aro n S h aro n ,

Se g o r,

s ee

Zoa r

Sh i nar 1 0 S id o n 28 S i l as 6 S imon Si me on 6 S i on 4 1 6

16 , 18

O bed 8

Part hi an s 2 2 Pe t e r 5 n Ph araoh 2 Ph aris e e s 5 Phyl acte ri e 5

Tabi t h a 5

Tars us 8 Th add ae us

Ptol e malS 8 , 1 2, 23

â&#x20AC;&#x153;1 0 10 111 3 9 1 5

Sadd uce e s Sal i m 1 3

Zal munna 29

5 , 30

Sanh e d r in 23

Zarace s 29

Zoa

Zoara