A Syriac Parallel to the Golden Rule

STOP

Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in
the world byJSTOR.

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries.

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial
purposes.

Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.istor.org/participate-istor/individuals/early-
journal-content .

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please
contact support@jstor.org.

NOTES 193

ogy and had been already sketched by Hardouin. Starting from the
theory of the twenty-five years of Eoman episcopate of Peter, these
theologians concluded that Peter must have been in Rome not later
than the year 42 a.d.; on the other hand it was only in the year 44
that Paul went to Jerusalem and there met for the first time Cephas,
with whom junxit dexteram. This Cephas could not be Peter, who
at that time was in Rome. But there is no doubt that the Cephas
who five years later in Antioch was rebuked by Paul was the same
man that Paul had met in Jerusalem, therefore he cannot be identified
with Peter, although about that time Peter returned to Jerusalem,
to preside over the council of the year 50.

The Vatican Council of 1870 and the discussions about the infalli-
bility of the Pope gave a new interest to the question. But modem
Catholic theologians, realizing how weak is the chronological argu-
ment based on legendary data, have abandoned Cephas to his fate,
and have gone back to Augustine and the old tradition of the western
Fathers. (Palmieri, D., De Romano Pontifice, Prati, 1902, pp. 372-73.
Mazzella, C, De Religione et Ecdesia, Prati, 1905, pp. 692-693.
Straub, De Ecdesia Christi, i, 135. Innsbruck, 1912.) They accepted
the identity of Cephas and Peter, but found in the episode of Antioch
a new argument in favor of the infalUbility of the Pope: "Huiusmodi
facto evidenter se prodit Petri primatus. Quamvis enim Paulus
verbis doceret non esse opus iudaizare, Petrus autem solo conversa-
tionis exemplo videretur docere esse iudaizandum, hie tamen ceteros
ipsumque Bamabam cogebat, non tantum alliciebat iudaizare. Unde
tanta efficacia exempli taciti Petri, ut praevaleret doctrinae praedican-
tis Pauli, nisi ex eo quod ab omnibus Petrus potior Paulo habebatur
eiusque auctoritas suprema esse in Ecclesia credebatur?" (Palmieri,
op. cit. p. 374.)

G. La Piana

A SYRIAC PARALLEL TO THE GOLDEN RULE

Numerous parallels to the Golden Rule of Matt. 7, 12 and Luke 6,
31 have been found in various writers.' Most of these are Jewish or
Christian, but some of them are far remote in time and place from

' Cf. Wettstein, Novum Te»tamentum, i, pp. 841 f.; A. Reach, in Texte und Unter-
suchungen, x (1897), 3, pp. 80 f.; G. Resch, ibid., xxviii (1905), 3, pp. 132 S.; Heinrici,
Beitrdge zur Gemhichte und Erklarung des Neuen Teatamentea, iii (1905), pp. 85 fi.; and
Proost, De Bergrede (1914), pp. 153 f . To the passages cited in these works may be
added the following: MahaWtarata, xii, 259, 20: Quod quispiam non vult sibi ab aliis

194 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

Judaism and Christianity. Sometimes the precept is put in the posi-
tive form and sometimes in the negative, more frequently in the latter.
A Syriac parallel, particularly interesting because it combines the
two forms, seems to have been hitherto overlooked. It occurs in the
philosophical dialogue entitled The Booh of the Laws of the Countries,
and is as follows: "For there are two commandments set before us,
which are meet and right for free-will: one, that we should depart
from everything that is evil and we hate to have done to ourselves;
and the other, that we should do whatever is good and we love, and
are pleased to have it done so also to ourselves." ^

The Book of the Laws of the Countries is traditionally ascribed to
Bardesanes, but is really the work of one of his disciples, who probably
wrote in the early part of the third century after Christ. The author
may have read, in Syriac or in Greek, a text of Acts 15, 20 or 29 having
the Golden Rule in the negative form after the prohibitions, and com-
bined this with the positive form found in Matt. 7, 12 and Luke 6,
31. Ephrem's commentary on Acts 15, 29 is based on a text similar
to that attested by D 25 29 etc., sah, syr. hi., Iren. int., Cyp. Barde-
sanes may have thought of the positive and negative forms of the
Golden Rule as constituting "the perfect law of freedom" mentioned
in James 1, 25.

Christian scholars are wont to dwell upon the superiority of the
positive form, whilst Jewish writers either prefer the latter ' or regard
the two as substantially equivalent. Thus Montefiore has "a feeling
that Hillel and Jesus meant pretty much the same thing." * Elbogen
thinks that Jesus derived the saying from Hillel through tradition,
and he finds no special merit in the positive form of statement.' The
truth is that both forms of the precept are based on love to our fellow-
men (Lev. 19, 18), which according to Akiba as well as to Jesus is the
fundamental principle of conduct. On the negative side love " worketh

fieri ne ipse aliis faciat, quia scit quid odiosum sit. Thales (Diog. Laert. i, 36):
'EpwTijffcts . . . TTWs av &pi(7Ta Kal diKaioTara 0Uji<TaitX€v [?<^7;] kav S rots fiXXots
iirtTiiiSiiiev, aiiTol fiii dpwiiiv. Ep. Arist. § 168 (ed. Wendland): '0 5i m/jos rinSiv KtKtiu,
lif)Te Xoytf iiifTt ipytf ixriSkva KaKOTToielv. Aphraates, Demonstratio, xxiii, 62 {Patrohgia
Syriaca, I, ii, 129, 11. 14 f.): "What you dislike when done to you do not do to your
fellow." This is word for word the way in which Hillel is said to have summarized
the Law (Sabb. 31a); cf. the Palestinian Targum on Lev. 19, 18; and Akiba in Aboth
de R. Nathan, c. 26 (ed. Schechter, Recension B, p. 27).

^ Cureton, Spieilegium Syriacum, p. 5; Patrologia Syriaca, I, ii, 551, II. 11 ff.

' Cf. e.g. Hirsch in The Jewish Encyclopedia, vi, p. 22.

* Montefiore, The Synoptic Oospels, ii (1909), p. 550.

' Elbogen, Die Religumsanschauungen der Pharisaer (1904), p. 76.

NOTES 195

not evil to the neighbour," and hence it is the"fulfihnent of the Law."*
On the positive side, as in Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan, love
manifests itself in generosity and helpfulness to others. The negative
form of the commandment teaches men to be just, whereas the posi-
tive bids them to be generous.'' The difference between justice and
generosity is well expressed by Wettstein: "lustus est, qui reddit
quod debet, quodque etiam ab invito per iudicem extorqueri poterat:
bonus sive beneficus, qui liberaliter dat, quod non debet." *

William H. P. Hatch
The Episcopal Theologicai. School
Cambridge, Mass.

"STRAIN OUT A GNAT AND ADORN A CAMEL"

In the late Professor Camden Cobem's useful book entitled The
New Archaeological Discoveries and their Bearing upon the New Testa-
ment a section is devoted to Tatian's Harmony of the Gospels, and
on pages 205-207 a list of its remarkable readings is given, according
to the Arabic text published by Ciasca. The list is misleading, for
many of the supposed examples of variation from the standard text
are not such in reality. Hamlyn Hill's English translation, on which
Cobern relied, is not always correct, and the Arabic translator himself
was sometimes unfortunate in his rendering of an ambiguous Syriac
word or phrase.

The singular reading quoted above, however, which is one of those
given in the list, is not to be laid to the charge of Professor Cobern or
of either translator, but is due to an extraordinary combination of
two transcriptional or typographical errors, which so far as I am
aware has not been observed by any one. Ciasca's Latin rendering
of Matt. 23, 24 (p. 71) has indeed "camelum omantes." His Arabic
text of the passage (p. 153) has the word yazdaruna, which means
neither 'they adorn' nor anything else which could possibly be used
here. It is at once plain that the true reading was yazraduna, 'they
swallow.' (I see that Rendel Harris, cited in Hill's translation, had
noted this, and doubtless other scholars have made the observation.)
Ciasca, however, must have read the word correctly, for his 'mnantes'

» Rom. 13, 10.

' So also Bruce in The Expositor's Greek Testament, 7th ed., i, p. 132.

' Wettstein, op. cit., ii, p. 46.