"james_snapp_jr" voxverax@yahoo.com 

Hort, commenting on Mt. 27:49 (Notes on Select Readings, pp. 21-22), mentions "a letter partially preserved in Syriac" written by Severus of Antioch (465-542?).  In this letter, Severus states that the variant about the piercing in Matthew was vigorously debated at Constantinople in connexion with the patriarch Macedonius, "when the magnificently written copy of St Matthew's Gospel said to have been discovered in Cyprus with the body of St Barnabas in the reign of Zeno (? 477) was consulted and found not to contain the sentence in question."

Hort proceeds to wave away this statement from Severus: "The `magnificent' copy of St Matthew, though said to have been written by Barnabas himself (Alex.mon. Laud. In Ap. Barn. 30 in Migne lxxxvii p. 4103), was doubtless of quite recent origin, the discovery having been opportunely made by Anthemius bishop of Salamis when he was vindicating the independence of Cyprus against the patriarch of Antioch, Peter the Fuller."

Um . . . excuse me?? I doubt that "doubtless."

What sort of elaborate fraud is Hort accusing Anthemius of perpetrating? The "Eulogy of St. Barnabas" written by Alexander the Monk, in PG 87, to which Hort alludes, was written in the early 500's. Its author claims that Anthemius found Barnabas' coffin and tomb after Barnabas repeatedly appeared to him in visions and revealed the location of his tomb. (So far I've seen the date of this given as 448, 478, and 488.) Convenient visions, doubtlessly. But the account says that Barnabas' tomb was found along with Barnabas' *corpse,* and with the copy of the Gospel of Matthew which St. Mark had placed there at Barnabas' funeral.  Is Anthemius supposed to have exhumed a recently-made copy of the Gospel of Matthew, which he claimed to be very ancient, and a recently-deceased corpse, which he claimed to be Barnabas? Are we supposed to picture Anthemius plotting a grand deception, and thinking, "Hmm; it won't be enough merely to `discover' the tomb of Barnabas; I had better find a copy of the Gospel of Matthew along with the corpse of Barnabas"??

Over at the Cyprian Project website there are links to several volumes of Patrologia Orientalis, including Volume 14, in which Severus of Antioch's letter CVIII, written to Thomas of Germanicea, is presented, in a more complete form, it seems, than what was available to Hort. (Vol. 14 begins with a large collection of letters by Severus, with the Syriac text and an English translation by E. W. Brooks on each page.) Turning to page 266 I found the following statements which pertain to Mt. 27:49 –

"But that our Lord Jesus Christ our God was pierced in the side with a lance by that soldier after he gave up the ghost, and blood and water came forth from it in a miraculous manner, the divine John the Evangelist recorded, and no one elsewrote about this. But certain persons have clearly falsified the Gospel of Matthew and inserted this same passage, when the contrary is the fact, in order to show that it was while he was alive that the soldier pierced his side with the spear, and afterwards he gave up the ghost. This question was examined with great carefulness when my meanness [by "my meanness" Severus means himself, i.e., "my humble self"] was in the royal city [by "the royal city" Severus means Constantinople], at the time when the affair of Macedonius was being examined, who became archbishop of that city, and there was produced the Gospel of Matthew, which was written in large letters, and was preserved with great honour in the royal palace, which was said to have been found in the days of Zeno of honourable memory in a city of the island of Cyprus buried with the holy Barnabas, who went about with Paul and spread the divine preaching; and, when the Gospel of Matthew was opened, it was found to be free from the falsification contained in this addition, of the story of the soldier and the spear."

Severus goes on about this on pages 277-278, and although he drifts from his main subject I think the material is worth presenting:

"I do not know how and for what reason the holy John who became bishop of the same royal city and the admirable Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, did not test this question, and allowed the two passages to stand, in the two evangelists, neglecting the evidence to the contrary; but perhaps in order that this also might be known, that, while they speak and write everything under the operation of the Holy Spirit, and while these men are higher than we (for we are men who creep along the earth), as the heaven is higher than the earth, and that they themselves also might be known to be men, and to leave omniscience to God only, and that there is something in affairs which cannot be expressed, the complete revelation of which is not made known."

He continues:
"Thus Samuel also, who as one may say saw with the eye of prophecy everything that was about to happen, did not know Saul when he was present and standing among all Israel, because God by means of these things was instructing his bondmen, and teaching them to pay regard to humility. Wherefore also the divine Scripture is written thus: << And Samuel asked in the Lord and said, `Cometh that man hither?' And the Lord said, `Lo! he is hidden among the vessels'. And he ran and took him thence >>. And at the time when the Shilumite woman's son died, and she had come to Elisha in great distress, as a mother who had been deprived of her beloved son, and, when she had just fallen at the feet of the prophet of God, and Gehazi tried to prevent her, the bondman of God, being moved by love and sorrow, said to Gehazi, << Let her alone, because her soul is bitter in her, and the Lord hid it from me and showed it not to me >> ."

He proceeds:
"Accordingly, you should know that Eusebius of Caesarea also who is called `Pamphili', who wrote the canons of the gospel, and imitated those who wrote on this subject before him, and had more complete knowledge of this question than the others, in the 10th canon, in which he recorded the places peculiar to one of the evangelists, inserted this passage also about the soldier and the lance, saying that John alone recorded it. And we also agree with this careful accuracy, not that we contend against our fathers (far be it!), but that we place the evangelists at a greater height than them, and assign to the evangelists only the intention which properly belongs to them, in order that in everything Jesus, who is God, who spoke in the evangelists, may be glorified, `in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden,' according to the saying of Paul.

Severus then cites John Chrysostom's commentary on Matthew:
"But for the rest we find that the holy John himself also, the bishop of Constantinople, in the commentary on the same Matthew the Evangelist with regard to this same addition which we are now discussing, himself also said things that fit the truth, for he expressed himself thus: << But another came up and perforated his side with a lance'. And what could be more wicked than these men? And who could be lawless like them? And who could be more savage than these same men, who showed their madness to such an extent, that they attacked a dead body. But do you mark how their madness was brought about for our salvation. For after the wound the fountain of life welled forth for us >>.
But these are the words of a man who follows the footsteps of the narrative of John the Evangelist and nothing else; for he called the body `dead'; because it was after he gave up the ghost that the soldier pierced him, and gave occasion for the fountain of our salvation to well forth thence, as the doctor John the bishop said."

Severus keeps on going:
"But this addition to the narrative of Matthew the Evangelist has never been inserted by any of the earlier commentators who wrote, not by Origen, who examined such questions minutely, though he sinned in matters that are necessary for the truth of the faith of the church, nor by Didymus, nor by any other man who has written on this subject."

Next, Severus refers to /Ad Marinum/:
"But Eusebius of Caesarea, who is called `Pamphili', whom we mentioned a little above, when writing to a man called Marinus about questions concerning the passions of our Saviour and about his Resurrection, showed us nothing whatever about the said addition, as being unknown and having no place in the books of the gospel. But in the same letters to Marinus, who had asked him for an interpretation on the subject of our Saviour's passions and his Resurrection, he inserted the following exposition also in his letters, that the divine Mark the Evangelist said that it was the 3rd hour at the time when Christ who is God and our Saviour was crucified, but the divine John (he said) wrote that it was at the 6th hour that Pilate sat upon his judgment-seat at the place called `the pavement', and judged Christ. And therefore Eusebius said that this is an error of a scribe, who was inattentive when writing the Gospel. For it is the letter /gamal/ that denotes 3 hours, while the letter which is called in Greek /episemon/ denotes the number of 6 hours, and these letters are like one another in Greek, and the scribe wishing to write `3' quickly, and having turned the letter a little backwards, it was thereby found to be `6', because, since the letter had been turned backwards, it was supposed to be the letter that denotes `6'. Since therefore the three other evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke stated alike as with one mouth that from the 6th hour to the 9th there was darkness over all the land, it is plain that our Lord and God Jesus Christ was crucified before the 6th hour, at which the darkness took place, that is from the 3rd hour, as the blessed John himself wrote. Similarly we say that it is the 3rd hour, because those who wrote before, as we have said, changed the letter."

Severus then cites Eusebius:
"We must insert also in this our letter upon this matter a part of what Eusebius himself stated at length; and his words are as follows: << We agree not with any chance man, but with the evangelist who gave this testimony, Mark. For it happened that there was an error on the part of the scribe so that he changed the letter by adding length to it, and it was thought that the letter which represents `3' was `6,' on account of the likeness of the two letters of that which denotes `3' and that which denotes `6'. If the refore it is stated by John that it was the preparation of the day of unlevened bread, and it was about the 6th hour, and Pilate said to the Jews << Behold! Your king >> and so on, let there be read instead of `6th' `3rd', since the beginning of his trial took place at that time, and in the middle of the hour or after it had been completed they crucified him, so that the result is that they judged and crucified him at the same hour >> . If you look for and find the volume addressed to Marinus about the interpretation of these things, you will find the accuracy of the writer as regards these matters. For our part we do not wish to write much on these subjects in this our letter."

Obviously Severus' Letter CVIII to Thomas of Germanicea contains plenty to discuss!

(Also of interest: elsewhere in Patrologia Orientalis Vol. 14 -- page 32 -- Severus quotes Mark 15:28. This is not mentioned in UBS-2 or NA27.)

Getting back to the question about Matthew 27:49 – are we supposed to imagine that everyone who saw the copy of Matthew that Severus describes was fooled by a copy that was actually of quite recent origin? Wouldn't the folks from Antioch have insisted that Anthemius' convenient discovery should be evaluated carefully? Istm that Hort dismisses this rather cavalierly.

I'm not saying that we can discern what Anthemius found, how he found it, and exactly how old it was. But an alternative to Hort's theory seems just as plausible: Anthemius wants to defend the autonomy of the Cypriot church. He knows that if he could find Barnabas' tomb, which was supposed to be somewhere on the island, that would greatly enhance a case for the autonomy of the Cypriot church. Anthemius is aware of a place that the locals regard as a "place of healing," and he naturally assumes that such a place must be a top contender for the location of Barnabas' tomb. He prays for guidance. Then he goes exploring the area around the "place of healing," and discovers an old Christian tomb, containing an old Christian's corpse, and an old Christian's copy of Matthew. And the rest is attributable to Anthemius' salesmanship.

(Alexander's story about Anthemius is summarized in Smith-Cheetham's Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, under the entry for Barnabas. It is noted there (Vol. , p. 179) that the copy of Matthew discovered by Anthemius was taken to Constantinople, and Zeno, "as soon as it arrived had it adorned with gold and placed in the imperial palace." (It occurs to me that inasmuch as this was not done in secret, it would probably be downright impossible for copyists in Constantinople to resist the temptation to use that copy of Matthew as an exemplar.)

In any event, Anthemius' copy of Matthew should be in the apparatus as a witness against the Alexandrian reading of Mt. 27:49.