What are the implications of the recent finding in Vatican Library in relation to Matt 12:1?

Question

Matthew 12:1 was in the news recently after the discovery of a hidden and over- written ancient manuscript in Syriac in the Vatican Library. The finding is important in the sense that the text differs from the currently used texts. For instance, Matt 12:1 depicts the disciples plucking the ears of corns on their way on the Sabbath day and rubbing the husk off on their palms. We rarely find the detail of dehusking in the present day versions. (I remember reading it in one Malayalam version translated directly from Syriac and used by Syrian Catholics of Southern India in the 1960s and 70s). Considering that the disciples were accused of doing forbidden things, i.e harvesting and cleaning the grains on Sabbath, the left-out part of Matt 12:1 is quite significant.

My question therefore is: What are the implications of the recent finding in the Vatican Library in relation to Matt 12:1. Inputs from any denomination are welcome.

---

The recently published article (Mar 2023) referenced by the news article is A New (Double Palimpsest) Witness to the Old Syriac Gospels (Vat. iber. 4, ff. 1 & 5), a journal article from New Testament Studies which has pictures of the manuscript and the transcriptions in Syriac (open access via Cambridge University Press). The other article from Phys.org referenced by the news article has an interview with the journal article author Grigory Kessel (a specialist in Syriac Studies) who provides the significance of the finding to the lay audience.

Answer 1

Fake News

A scientist said he found a chapter of the Bible hidden for more than 1,500 years.

These misleading articles have been circulating for the last few months as clickbait sensational articles, by misrepresenting facts. They claim that the manuscript reveals a hidden chapter or never before seen text, which imply that some unique textual variant or a textual reading has been discovered. However, in reality the writing within this manuscript was hidden beneath an overwritten text, something which is not rare in ancient manuscripts, where due to scarcity of manuscripts, they had to recycle the existing books; the reading (content) itself is not unknown. The Syrian text is identical with the existing Syrian (Peshitta) Curetonian Gospels, as mentioned in the linked Cambridge article.

Collation of the Gospel text based on the UV images produced by the Vatican library, enables us to establish that the extant text is identical to the Curetonianus (British Library, Add. 14451). Although in a number of instances the Curetonianus and the Sinaiticus agree against the Peshitta (Matt 12.5, 12.6, 12.7a, 12.7b, 12.8, 12.10a, 12.11b, 12.12, 12.13, 12.19a, 12.24b), there is significant evidence to demonstrate the absolute agreement of the Vatican fragment with the Curetonianus as against the Sinaiticus (Matt 12.1b, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.9, 12.10b, 12.11a, 12.16, 12.17, 12.19b, 12.21, 12.22, 12.23, 12.24a, 12.25).

The variants are so minute to be useful only for the textual critics. The old Syrian translation (Peshitta) is known to be from the third century, and this copy in question dates to under the sixth century. Aina reports:

A medievalist from the Austrian Academy of Sciences (OeAW) has now been able to make legible the lost words on this layered manuscript, a so-called palimpsest: Grigory Kessel discovered one of the earliest translations of the Gospels, made in the 3rd century and copied in the 6th century, on individual surviving pages of this manuscript. The findings are published in the journal New Testament Studies. One of the oldest fragments that testifies ancient Syrian version

"The tradition of Syriac Christianity knows several translations of the Old and New Testaments," says medievalist Grigory Kessel. "Until recently, only two manuscripts were known to contain the Old Syriac translation of the gospels." While one of these is now kept in the British Library in London, another was discovered as a palimpsest in St. Catherine's Monastery at Mount Sinai. The fragments from the third manuscript were recently identified in the course of the "Sinai Palimpsests Project."

The small manuscript fragment, which can now be considered as the fourth textual witness, was identified by Grigory Kessel using ultraviolet photography as the third layer of text, i.e., double palimpsest, in the Vatican Library manuscript. The fragment is so far the only known remnant of the fourth manuscript that attests to the Old Syriac version--and offers a unique gateway to the very early phase in the history of the textual transmission of the Gospels

For example, while the original Greek of Matthew chapter 12, verse 1 says, "At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath; and his disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat," the Syriac translation says, "[...] began to pick the heads of grain, rub them in their hands, and eat them."

Claudia Rapp, director of the Institute for Medieval Research at the OeAW, says, "Grigory Kessel has made a great discovery thanks to his profound knowledge of old Syriac texts and script characteristics." The Syriac translation was written at least a century before the oldest Greek manuscripts that have survived, including the Codex Sinaiticus. The earliest surviving manuscripts with this Syriac translation date from the 6th century and are preserved in the erased layers, so-called palimpsests, of newly written parchment leaves.

The additional gloss of "rubbing them in hands" in Matt 12:1 is simply harmonization with Luke 6:1. Maybe such variant exists in some Greek mss as well.

We can observe how misleadingly the source Claudia Rapp exaggerates the value of the Syrian translation by saying the original translation which began in the 3rd century is older than the oldest (full copies of original) Greek, like the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus. These oldest full copies are often misrepresented as the oldest surviving Greek text, as if there are no surviving mss before them.

The '1,500' Year Old 'Bible' and Muslim Propaganda

Since 2010, there have been a hoax being circulated about a secret new 1500 years old Vatican manuscript (Gospel of Barnabas) which predicts Muhammad. This hoax falsely claimed that the 15th century Gospel of Barnabas is 1500 years old. The Gospel of Barnabas was already known, and Muslims leaders like Deedat have circulated and printed it misleadingly to support Muhammad, but this news about the Vatican giving this copy of that medieval forgery to Turkey revived the hoax for the internet among muslims and naive unlearned people.

Answer 2

The incident in Matt 12:1-7 is also recorded by Mark and Luke. The wording of the first verse is essentially the same in Mark.

However, in Luke 6:1 we have the following record:

One Sabbath Jesus was passing through the grainfields, and His disciples began to pick the heads of grain, rub them in their hands, and eat them.

Thus, the record discovered in the Vatican library is hardly startling - it had been in Luke all along. This kind of copying error is very common among the gospel accounts - the scribe, while writing one gospel account recalls similar wording in another and writes the text (unwittingly) from the parallel account.

Answer 3

What are the implications of the recent finding in the Vatican Library in relation to Matt 12:1?

As @Michael16's answer shows, there is no new text discovered. As @Dottard points out, the longer Curetonianus version of Matt 12:1 is already attested in Luke 6:1, so there is no theological significance.

The only significance is what Grigory Kessel says in the conclusion of his journal article that the Curetonianus witness is maybe more authoritative than the Sinaiticus from his study of the UV images of the Vatican fragment (resulting from multi-spectral imaging) uncovering the original Old Syriac gospel manuscript which was erased to reuse the papyrus for another purpose (Apophthegmata Patrum).

Sensationalism and misrepresentation

Therefore, the Business Insider article title "Scientists say they have found a chapter of the Bible hidden under a section of text for more than a thousand years" is sensationalism that can potentially mislead undiscerning reader. Another article not only is guilty of sensationalism (title = "Lost Chapter of the Bible Discovered After 1000 Years, Thanks to UV Light") but also guilty of misrepresentation saying that

An Austrian scientist, Grigory Kessel, has recently uncovered a “hidden chapter" of the Bible that is believed to be 1,750 years old.

BUT Grigory says nothing of the sort, if we read his article carefully. There is no mention of "chapter" or "hidden" there, nor in his interview response in the Phys.org article. These are not worthy of journalistic standard and I agree with @Michael16 that those articles are sensationalist, click-baits, and misrepresentations.

Compare with the more accurate title of the Phys.org article "Fragment of a 1,750-year-old New Testament translation discovered."

Conclusion

While using technology provides us with a better tool for an "archeology of manuscripts", so far the findings reported in that New Testament Studies journal article have not provided any new textual variant, only changing priority of textual witness.

Resources for further study

• Peshitta New Testament, a tool courtesy of Dukhrana Biblical Research which enables us to show side by side various NT editions:

  • Old Syriac: Curetonian Gospels, Sinaitic Palimpsest
  • Greek: Textus Receptus, Westcoot-Hort 1881 + Nestle-Aland 27th, official Greek Orthodox Church NT, etc.
  • English (and other language) Peshitta translations
  • KJV, Vulgate, and other language translations from Greek

• Evangelion da-Mepharreshe: the Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, with the readings of the Sinai Palimpsest and the early Syriac Patristic Evidence: a side-by-side English translation of the Old Syriac Curetonian Version of the 4 gospels by F. Crawford Burkitt (a theologian with an expertise in Paleography) published by Cambridge in 1904, which we can read in archive.org (thanks to @Michael16).

• An 2022 broader study by the same author (Grigory Kessel) about the fragment itself: Membra disjecta sinaitica III: Two (Palimpsest) Fragments of Sin. geo. 49 and Their Four Syriac Undertexts published in The Vatican Library Review via (open access) Brill website.

Answer 4

Others have noted that the discovery has been sensationalized and it's importance exaggerated. The significance of the extra charge, as in the Luke passage, is to make a stronger accusation against Yeshua: He allows both harvesting and food preparation on Shabbat. The Prushim (Pharisees) interpreted Torah to prohibit both. Kindling a fire is prohibited, but does that mean cooking, by extension, or only the laborious effort of starting a fire where there is none? Does Ex. 16:23 apply to every Shabbat, or does Ex. 12:16 mean the prohibition was only during the period of manna? Is it considered harvesting when one is providing for the immediate need, or is it only harvesting when done for storing up or for commerce? These are not questions of whether to keep Torah, rather how to interpret it. (The issue of theft is not raised because this could reasonably be considered gleaning.) Yeshua's answer was so beautiful because He did not respond with different interpretation. Instead He gave (rare) examples where the letter and the Spirit collide, to demonstrate that the Spirit takes precedence.

Answer 5

Maybe not the answer you were looking for, but before thinking there might be something revolutionary to be discovered, my first thought is to look at the story as it is traditionally. For starters, grain, I think is central to the story and any translation of grain as corn removes an important element - grain is small. How much grain would one have to eat to satisfy one's hunger? Probably more than one would be willing to eat raw, so why bother? Well, one might examine the Hebrew word for grain for clues. Son has the same root as the word for threshed (purified) grain, BaR. So, you might ask, are they satisfying their physical or spiritual hunger with this "grain"?

Maybe my bigger point is that focusing on how grains were dehusked loses sight of any deeper meaning, which I personally believe is even deeper than the question of working on the Sabbath even if they, as others have pointed out, are addressed by the story. One story multiple meanings.

That said, I don't think any academics are arguing over "mistranslations" or suprising new details. From what I have read about the find is that it helps put a time and place to early written Bibles and shows changes, or lack thereof over time, but a game of telephone is inescapable.