New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 2: More Noncanonical Scriptures

I. Gospels and Related Traditions of New Testament Figures

The Adoration of the Magi

A new translation and introduction

by Adam Carter Bremer-McCollum

In the early twentieth century, various colonialist expeditions in Central Asia yielded a hoard of texts in a myriad of languages and scripts.¹ Among these texts is the Adoration of the Magi (Ador. Magi), a four-page narrative in eighty lines that recounts in unique fashion the story of the Magi’s visit to the young Jesus. The work, while incomplete, nevertheless offers a relatively intact story, with some details that are little known or unknown in other sources. It is written in Old Turkic (more specifically, Old Uyghur) and in Uyghur script. The text has been translated into German (more than once), Russian, and French, but is translated here into English for the first time.

Contents

Ador. Magi naturally shares some things in common with Matt 2:1–13,² but it also has unique elements unknown, or at least only barely known, from any other source. As it now survives, the story begins with the Magi in Jerusalem speaking with Herod. The Magi depart from there, following a star, to Bethlehem, having with them three gifts for the one whose majesty they wish to honor. The star stops, of course, at Bethlehem, and they know they are at the right place. The young Jesus sleeps in a crib made of stone, a piece of which he breaks off as a gift for the Magi, but they are unable to carry it, and at first do not recognize its worth. They end up throwing it into a well, yet when they have done so, a light and fire come forth from it, giving the narrator an opportunity to make a link between Jesus’ gift to the Magi and Zoroastrian reverence for fire. The story ends with an angelic appearance to the Magi directing them safely away from Herod, who is thus angered at having been tricked and commands the slaughter of the innocents. Finally, an angel appears to Joseph in a dream to deliver an unspecified command.

Manuscript, Editions, and Translations

Ador. Magi is extant in a form of Old Turkic known as Old Uyghur.³ Old Uyghur texts were created between the ninth to the thirteenth centuries. They are written in a variety of scripts, including Uyghur, which is used for Ador. Magi. Some of the later Christian material is written in Syriac script,⁴ but Uyghur, adapted from Sogdian script and widely used irrespective of religious community,⁵ is most common.⁶ As for the lone manuscript in which the text is found—Berlin, Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, U 9175 (formerly TII B 29)—it is now lost. It was taken from Berlin to Moscow after World War II, but its whereabouts are now unknown, even though efforts have been made to locate it.⁷ Fortunately, at least, the facsimiles published by Müller in 1908 (and reprinted by van Tongerloo) are still relatively readable.

The text, the beginning and perhaps the end of which are missing, is written on two folios (four pages), in one column, with twenty-one lines on the first three pages, and seventeen on the last. The title is in red, and there are some punctuation marks to indicate certain degrees of division. Müller saw a probable Syriac origin in these codicological aspects of the extant pages.⁸ Some lines are completed by a Zeilenfüller—that is, the last letter of the last word in the line is repeated so as to fill out the line. At the bottom of the last page, the ornamentation suggests we may in fact have the end of the text. There are four four-dot diamonds to end the last line, and then two decorative line-fillers to get to the end of the page. There is something in Uyghur script at the end of pages 1 and 2, but both were apparently indecipherable even to Müller. In the margin of page 2, we have näčükin ant … ol; the ellipses were added by Müller to represent a few letters missing due to a small tear in the folio. Some of the writing has been rubbed off on page 3, as at the beginning of lines 13–15. Overall, however, the four pages were relatively well preserved and legible at the time Müller saw them in the first decade of the twentieth century.

The Uyghur text has been published four times (by Müller, Malov, van Tangerloo, and Zieme), and three German translations (Müller, Bang,⁹ and Zieme), one Russian (Malov), and one French (van Tangerloo) have appeared. Part of the story was published in English by Leonardo Olschki but the source of the translation is unclear—either the Old Uyghur itself or one of the German translations of Müller and Bang, both of which are referenced by Olschki.¹⁰ As already mentioned, the English translation that follows below is the first complete one to be published.

Language, Date, and Provenance

Albert von le Coq, in a letter to Gustaf Richard Raquette dated 2 September 1907, wrote:¹¹

You will be interested to know that we have had the good luck to find amongst the Mss. I brought from Turfan, parts of a Bible in ancient Turki of say the 7–9th centuries—I was ready to disbelieve my eyes when I saw the words […]¹² Khirodees Khan the King Herodes, followed by a description of the kings before the cradle at Bethlehem!!

It was, of course, not a part of the Bible they had found, but our Magi text.

Müller suggests a Syriac or Sogdian Vorlage for the text,¹³ and, as noted above, even sees possible evidence for a Syriac origin in the codicological features of the Uyghur manuscript. Malov, based explicitly on the writing of the proper names, likewise considers the Uyghur text to have a Syriac or Sogdian original,¹⁴ while van Tongerloo, based on the same evidence, claims it as certain that the text was translated from Sogdian, but still assumes a Syriac original.¹⁵ Earlier, Olschki had briefly questioned the assumption of translation, following Bang’s work on the text and the apparent idiomatic character of its language, noting, too, that if it is a Turkic composition (even in part, we may add), and not a translation, it means we are dealing with a comparatively independent development of the legend in the Central Asiatic area.¹⁶ Although the trend of the rest of Christian Uyghur literature would indeed point to a Syriac or Syriac to Sogdian source—in part, if not in full—we can link no known Syriac or Sogdian source directly to the Uyghur text.

Literary and Theological Considerations

The Old Uyghur corpus has the largest amount of Buddhist texts (mostly Mahāyāna),¹⁷ followed by Manichaean, and finally, Christian. The texts are generally translations, in the case of the Christian texts, from Syriac or an Iranian language.¹⁸ The study of the Christian material in Old Uyghur has been made much easier with the publication of Peter Zieme’s Altuigurische Texte der Kirche des Ostens aus Zentralasien, though most of the texts are still not available in English.¹⁹

One common literary characteristic of Old Uyghur, also well in evidence in Ador. Magi, deserves mention here: hendiadys, the use of (usually) two near synonyms side-by-side to describe one entity. For example, elig han (king-king, l. 20), otačï ämči (physician-physician, l. 24), oot yalïn (fire-flame, l. 51), kök kalïkka tägi (up to the sky-firmament, ll. 51–52), aŋlap bilip (understand-recognize, l. 54), tapïngu yüküngü (honoring-worshipping, l. 56), and bukagulukčï ölütči yargan-lar (slayers-murderers-henchmen, ll. 73–74). These are generally translated below by a single term in English.

As we turn to the narrative content of our text, we might naturally ask about the rich assortment of Syriac witnesses to the Magi, especially given the supposed Syriac basis for the greater part of Uyghur Christian literature.²⁰ Not surprisingly, there are at least a few places of overlap between what is known from Syriac Magi literature generally and the Uyghur text, but the most interesting parts of our text find no obvious counterpart in known Syriac literature. Müller mentions at the end of his edition (thanks to Albert von le Coq) a somewhat similar story in Marco Polo (whose translator, Yule, also points to such a tale in al-Masʿūdī).²¹ Even if we are dealing in this case with echoes of the same version of the story as our Turkic text presents, the Turkic text remains our most direct reference to this form of the story with its otherwise relatively unknown happenings.

While we might compare in detail the version of the story in Ador. Magi with the various interpretations given in Syriac and other literatures—for example, the ways the gifts of the Magi have been understood—here I will only briefly touch on a few matters that are especially notable in this version of the story: the crib and the stone, the well and Zoroastrian reverence for fire, and Herod and the murder of Zechariah.

One striking part of the Turkic version of the story is that, while the Magi are present, the young Jesus breaks off a piece of his stone cradle and gives it to them.²² This stone, the Magi eventually realize, is extremely heavy, and neither they nor their horse(s) are able to carry it. Olschki sees this heavy stone as an instance of miraculous immobility of relics like the Buddha’s alms-bowl, beggar’s staff, and coffin.²³ In (later) Christian hagiographic tradition there are indeed cases where a sacred relic withstands removal by unworthy hands, but, as Loomis notes, it is often hard to decide whether the feat is one of adhesion or one of immobility,²⁴ and we may question whether these legendary events, Buddhist or Christian, are really of the same sort as that of the unbelievably heavy piece of stone that the child gave the Magi.

The Magi, in order to rid themselves of the onerous burden of the piece of stone, throw it into a well they pass by, and then this well, presumably due to the stone, emits a bright, fiery light.²⁵ It is at this point that the Magi then realize the specialness of the stone the child Jesus had given them, even calling it a jewel. The narrator pauses the narrative here to offer an explanation: the Magi’s sight of this fiery light and their recognition of the value of Jesus’ gift is the origin of their (i.e., Zoroastrians’) adoration of fire to this very day.²⁶ The anachronism of this etiology notwithstanding, the narrator is trying to draw a causal connection between Jesus (and perhaps Christianity) and a particular aspect of Zoroastrian practice and belief. A connection between Zoroastrianism and Jesus—and in that order, not the other way around—is found elsewhere in the literature of the Church of the East, but in wholly different trappings. Išoʿdad mentions Zarathustra’s prophecy of Jesus’ birth,²⁷ as does, with different details, Solomon of Basra’s the Book of the Bee, in which Zarathustra says of Jesus:

He will descend from my family. I am he, and he is me, and he is in me, and I am in him. And when the beginning of his coming is seen, great signs will be seen in the sky, and his light will conquer the light of the sun…. [I]t is you who will first perceive the coming of that great king, whom prisoners are waiting on, that they might be released … And when the star that I have told you about is rising, messengers should be sent from among you, carrying offerings, and they should offer him worship. (Bk. Bee 37)²⁸

Thus the Magi’s reverence for fire has in the Turkic text a unique (and anachronistic) etiology, one leading back directly to the infant Jesus and the Magi’s response to his personal gift to them.

Finally, at the end of the story (at least as it survives), the narrator turns to the slaughter of the innocents, but begins this part of the story by referring to the death of Zechariah, the high priest, at the hands of the evil-doing king Herod (Ador. Magi 8). While the author says we would like to write about this incident, he says nothing else about Zechariah, being concerned thereafter directly only with Herod’s anger at the Magi and then his command that the kingdom’s male infants under age two should be killed. In some traditions the reference to the murder of Zechariah in Matt 23:35 is thought to refer indeed, not to the prophet, but to John the Baptist’s father, whom Herod had killed when he did not reveal John’s location during the slaughter of the innocents: thus told, for example, in the Cave of Treasures 47:18²⁹ and Bk. Bee 39.³⁰ Schilling remarks that the Uyghur version derives from the Protevangelium of James, although this may be overstated.³¹ While the Uyghur text does mention Zechariah’s death at Herod’s hand (cf. Prot. Jas. 23–24), it is perhaps not necessary to link it so directly and specifically with the earlier text.

Translation

The English translation that follows is based on an examination of the Uyghur text in Müller’s facsimile, as well as consultation with all of the known editions and translations (German, Russian, and French).³² I have divided the translation into short numbered paragraphs. Words or phrases specifically added for the sake of English are in parentheses. As mentioned above, hendiadys is rendered by one element only.

Bibliography

EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS

Bang, Willy. Türkische Bruchstücke einer nestorianischen Georgspassion. Mus 39 (1926): 41–75. (Annotated German translation, pp. 43–53.)

Malov, Sergey E. Pamyatnik khristianskogo verouchitel’nogo soderzhaniya ‘Pokloneniye volkhvov’ (in Russian). Pages 131–38 in idem, Pamyatniki drevnetyurkskoy pis’mennosti. Teksty i issledovaniya. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1951. (Text, transcription, and Russian translation with Uyghur-Russian glossary.)

Müller, Friedrich W. K. Die Anbetung der Magier, ein christliches Bruchstück. Pages 4–10 and Tafel I and II in idem, Uigurica. Abhandlungen der Königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 2. Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1908. (Editio princeps with facsimile, transcription, and German translation.)

Olschki, Leonardo. The Crib of Christ and the Bowl of Buddha. JAOS 70 (1950): 161–64. (Partial English translation.)

Tongerloo, Aloïs van. Ecce Magi ab oriente venerunt. Acta Orientalia Belgica 7 (1992): 57–74. (Reprint of Müller’s facsimile and transcription, with annotated French translation.)

Zieme, Peter. Magierlegende. Pages 49–55 in idem, Altuigurische Texte der Kirche des Ostens aus Zentralasien. Gorgias Eastern Christian Studies 41. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2015. (Transcription and annotated German translation, with Uyghur-German glossary.)

STUDIES

Schilling, Alexander Markus. Die Anbetung der Magier und die Taufe der Sasaniden. Zur Geistesgeschichte des iranischen Christentums in der Spätantike. CSCO 621. Subsidia 120. Leuven: Peeters, 2008. (Esp. 168–83.)

Tubach, Jürgen. Die Weisen aus dem Morgenland in einer Erzählung aus der Turfan-Oase. Pages 323–45 in Walter Beltz and J. Tubach, eds., Regionale Systeme koexistierender Religionsgemeinschaften. Leucorea Kolloquium 2001. Hallesche Beiträge zur Orientwissenschaft 34. Halle (Saale): Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Sachsen-Anhalt, 2002.

1. See the popular coverage in Peter Hopkirk, Foreign Devils on the Silk Road: The Search for the Lost Treasures of Central Asia (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1980).

2. The Magi pericope comprises Matt 2:1–12, but I include verse 13 here, too, since the last three lines of the text mention the angelic appearance to Joseph in a dream.

3. In addition, Old Turkic includes the language of some runiform (i.e., written in runes) inscriptions from the seventh to the tenth centuries and of some eleventh-century texts from the Karakhanid Khanate, written mostly in Arabic script. The modern Uyghur language also belongs to the Turkic family but does not derive from Old Uyghur.

4. See Nina V. Pigulevskaya, Fragments syriaques et syro-turcs de Hara-Hoto et de Tourfan, Revue de l’Orient chrétien 30 (1935–1936): 3–46, and also the later part of Zieme, Altuigurische Texte.

5. See the description in Marcel Erdal, Grammar of Old Turkic (Handbook of Oriental Studies 8.3; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2004), 37.

6. Further on Uyghur script see Nicholas Sims-Williams, The Sogdian Sound System and the Origins of the Uyghur Script, Journal Asiatique 269 (1981): 347–60; Albert von le Coq, Kurze Einführung in die uigurische Schriftkunde, Mitteilungen des Seminars für Orientalische Sprachen, Westasiatische Studien 22.2 (1919): 93–109; György Kara, Aramaic Scripts for Altaic Languages, in The World’s Writing Systems (ed. Peter T. Daniels and William Bright; New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 536–58 (esp. 539–45).

7. Personal communication from Zieme (16 Jan. 2015): unfortunately the original text is lost. There was some hope that it was brought after WW II to Moscow or [St.] Petersburg, but among those ‘rediscovered ones’ it was not found.

8. Äußerlich betrachtet macht das Papierdoppelblatt mit seinem roten Titel (S. 4) und den Schlußverzierungen den Eindruck, als ob es aus einem syrischen Buche stammte (Müller, Anbetung der Magier, 5).

9. Bang made a new translation drawing upon the advances in Turcology since Müller’s initial publication, and suggests that the new translation is ahead by a camel’s head: Ich setze eine neue freie Übersetzung her, da die Turkologie seit 1908 nicht ganz stationär geblieben ist, sodass meine Übersetzung der Müllerschen um die bekannte Kameelskopflänge voraus ist (Türkische Bruchstücke, 43).

10. Olschki, Crib of Christ, 162.

11. See Aloïs van Tongerloo and Michael Knüppel, Briefe von Albert v. Le Coq an Gustaf Richard Raquette aus den Jahren 1907–1927, Zentral-Asiatische Studien 43 (2014): 269–309 at 279–80. The two exclamation points at the end of the portion quoted here are in the text as published by the editors.

12. Here the letter gives the words in Uyghur script.

13. Müller, Anbetung der Magier, 5.

14. Malov, Pamyatnik khristianskogo, 131.

15. Van Tongerloo, Ecce Magi, 69.

16. Olschki, Crib of Christ, 161.

17. Johan Elverskog, Uyghur Buddhist Literature (Silk Road Studies 1; Turnhout: Brepols, 1997), and Peter Zieme, Fragmenta Buddhica Uigurica: Ausgewählte Schriften von Peter Zieme (ed. Simone-Christiane Raschmann and Jens Wilkens; Studien zur Sprache, Geschichte und Kultur der Turkvölker 7; Berlin: Klaus Schwarz, 2009).

18. Religious Uygur texts, which are the majority, are normally translations, reformulations, expansions etc. of texts in other languages; Chinese, Indic, Iranian or Tokharian if the text is Buddhistic, Iranian if it is Manichaean, Iranian or Syriac if it is Christian (Erdal, Grammar, p. 23 n. 43).

19. See also his earlier overview, Zu den nestorianisch-türkischen Turfantexten, in Georg Hazai and Peter Zieme, eds., Sprache, Geschichte und Kultur der altaischen Völker: Protokollband der XII. Tagung der Permanent International Altaistic Conference 1969 in Berlin (Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des alten Orients 5; Berlin: Akademie, 1974), 661–68 (+ 4 plates). See also Pigulevskaya, Fragments syriaques et syro-turcs.

20. See Witold Witakowski, The Magi in Syriac Tradition, in Malphono w-Rabo d-Malphone: Studies in Honor of Sebastian P. Brock (ed. George Kiraz; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2008), 809–43 and Brent Landau, The Revelation of the Magi, in MNTA 1:19–38. Within Central Asian Christianity, which rested especially on the Syriac Church of the East, we find in the Xi’an Stele (also known as the Nestorian Stele/Monument) a brief reference to the Magi, but nothing in great detail: In Persia they saw the shining light and approached with offerings (Bōsī dǔ yào yǔ lái gòng, end of line 6 in the inscription; in the Chinese text as published by P. Yoshio Saeki, The Nestorian Monument in China [London: SPCK, 1916], this phrase is found in the penultimate line of p. 260).

21. See further Olschki, Crib of Christ, 162; van Tongerloo, Ecce Magi, 72–74; and Schilling, Anbetung der Magier, 168–69.

22. For bread (not a stone) given to the Magi, see Schilling, Anbetung der Magier, 170 n. 43 (citing the Ethiopic Liber nativitatis Mariae 16.25–31, ed. Marius Chaîne, Apocrypha de Beata Maria Virgine [CSCO 39, Aeth. 22; Rome: Karolus de Luigi, 1909], 3–19), but Schilling (Anbetung der Magier, 178–80) argues that the stone is the earlier version.

23. Olschki, Crib of Christ, 163–64; cf. Tubach, Weisen aus dem Morgenland, 329–34.

24. C. Grant Loomis, White Magic: An Introduction to the Folklore of Christian Legend (Mediaeval Academy of America Publication 52; Cambridge, MA: Mediaeval Academy of America, 1948), 56–57; see also 49, and the references at 174 n. 90.

25. There is a tradition of a well in Bethlehem connected with Mary and with the Magi that seems to have been a pilgrimage site. See Schilling, Anbetung der Magier, 182 n. 101, where Gregory of Tours, Glor. mart. is quoted: In Bethlehem there is a large well, from which Mary the glorious is said to have drunk water. Often a famous wonder is shown to observers, that is, the star that appeared to the Magi is revealed to those there who are pure in heart (Est autem in Bethleem puteus magnus, de qua Maria gloriosa aquam fertur hausisse. Saepius aspicientibus miraculum inlustre monstratur, id est stella ibi mundis corde, quae apparuit magis ostenditur, 488.23–30; ed. Bruno Krusch, in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum, vol. 1 [Hanover: Hahn, 1885], 284–370; my translation).

26. For Jerusalem as the source of the fire, see Schilling, Anbetung der Magier, 180–81 (with nn. 95–96) for two Armenian witnesses. For Zoroastrian reverence for fire, see Mary Boyce, Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979), index s.vv. fire, fires, temple, fire temples, and fire worshippers.

27. Syriac text in Margaret Dunlop Gibson, ed., The Commentaries of Ishoʿdad of Merv (5 vols.; Horae Semiticae 5–7, 10–11; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911–1916), 2:32; English translation in 1:19.

28. Syriac text in Ernest A. W. Budge, ed., The Book of the Bee (Oxford: Clarendon, 1886), 90.5–15; my translation. For more on Zarathustra’s prophecy, see John C. Reeves, Prophecy of Zardūšt, in A Multiform Heritage: Studies on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Robert A. Kraft (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 167–82; and Giuseppe Messina, Una presunta profezia di Zoroastro sulla venuta del messia, Biblica 14, no. 2 (1933): 170–98.

29. Su-Min Ri, La Caverne des Trésors: Les deux recensions syriaques (CSCO 486–87, Syr. 207–8; Leuven: Peeters, 1987), eastern recension 14–18. For an updated introduction and translation of Cav. Tr. see Alexander Toepel, The Cave of Treasures, in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures, vol. 1 (ed. Richard Bauckham et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 531–84.

30. Syriac text in Budge, Book of the Bee, 95 (Syriac numbering); translation, p. 86.

31. Schilling, Anbetung der Magier, 169: aus einer Exegese des Protoevangelium Jacobi erwachsen ist.

32. I would like to thank Peter Zieme for looking over my initial translation of the text and for his comments, and Lydia Clare Bremer-McCollum for several helpful comments on the introduction. Any remaining failings, of course, are my own.

The Adoration of the Magi

[…]

a

LINES 1–8

Matt 2:8

¹Let us go and worship his great majesty, they requested.b Then kingc Herod commanded them thus: Now, my beloved sons,d go well and seek for (him) carefully! When you find (him), turn and come back and let me know,e so I, too, can go and worship him,f he said.

LINES 8–21

Matt 2:9; Matt 2:11

²Now the Magi,g when they departed Jerusalem,h the star was also going together with them.i Whenj the Magi made it to Bethlehem,k the star stopped, not moving. Then and there they found Christ, God. Then, trembling, they drew near and entered. They opened their baggage, and ventured to present the gifts they had brought,l three kinds of treasure: gold, myrrh,m and incense.n They worshipped and ventured to present praise and blessing to Christ, the king, God.

LINES 21–26

³The Magi entered, thinking,a If he is the Son of God, he will take the myrrh and incense. If he is the king, Christ, he will take the gold. If he is the physician,b he will take the grass-cure.c They put (the gifts) on a platter and brought (them) in.d

LINES 26–36

⁴The Son of the eternal God, the king, Christ, deigned to recognize the thoughts of the Magi, and thus accepted all three kinds of treasure. He deigned (to speak) to them as follows: O Magi! You entered with three kinds of thought. I am Son of God, and I am also king, and I am also physician, he graciously said. Have no doubt, and go! he added.e

LINES 36–46

⁵For the Magi he broke off a chunk of stone from the corner of the stone cradle, like breaking off bread,f and gave (it to them). So the Magi took the stone, but were not able to lift it themselves, and when they loaded it onto a horse, the horse could not lift it either,g so they took counsel (together): This stone is very heavy! This one chunk of stone, why is the horse, too, unable to lift it for us? It will be impossible for us to carry it! they said to one another.

LINES 46–55

⁶Then in that place a well appeared, and they lifted the stone and threw it into the well. Thus they went and looked back: inside the well a great, terrible light with fire came forth up to the sky and remained. When the Magi saw that wonderful sign, they understooda (what the stone meant) and were afraid, fell with their heads down, and worshipped.

LINES 55–65

Matt 2:12

⁷They said, "He gave us a jewelb to be honored and worshipped, yet we were not worthy to honor it; not having realized (what it was), we threw it into the well!"c they said regretfully. (This is the reason that the Magi honor fire to this very day.) At that time a divine angeld appeared to them, led them, and had the Magi go by another road, and they did not reach king Herod.

LINES 65–77

Prot. Jas. 23–24; Matt 2:16

⁸In addition, we would like to write of the death of Zechariah, the high priest,e at the hands of the evil-doing king Herod. At that time king Herod saw that the Magi had returned by going on a different road. These Magi mocked me! he said in great anger. He commanded his attendant executioners, Go through my kingdom: if there are little boysf under two years of age, kill them all!

LINES 78–80

Matt 2:13

a. As indicated above, there is presumably something missing at the beginning of the text, but just how much is uncertain.

b. The verb ötün- can have the sense of to submit a statement or request to a superior; to request, pray (Gerard Clauson, Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish [Oxford: Clarendon, 1972], 62), as well as to do something respectfully or imploringly.

c. As van Tongerloo (Ecce Magi, 70) notes, Herod is called han, while Christ is called elig han (hendiadys).

d. Differently, van Tongerloo (Ecce Magi, 70) takes oglan as son (of a king) > prince; cf. Clauson, Dictionary, 84b.

e. Cf. Erdal, Grammar, 195, 482 (together with 213 and 482 on näčükin when).

f. Cf. Erdal, Grammar, 428.

g. Uyghur mogoč is a Sogdian form; cf. van Tongerloo, Ecce Magi, 70 and Tubach, Weisen aus dem Morgenland, 326 n. 12.

h. Uyghur urïšlïm is a Sogdian (< Syriac) form; cf. van Tongerloo, Ecce Magi, 70.

i. See this sentence also at Erdal, Grammar, 482.

j. On kačan, eventually, at some point in time, cf. Erdal, Grammar, 331, 481.

k. Uyghur bidilhim derives from Sogdian (< Syriac); cf. van Tongerloo, Ecce Magi, 70.

l. Taking kim differently, as well as another sense of ötün-(on which see above), see Erdal, Grammar, 340 (cf. 506): They said they had brought three types of present.

m. Uyghur zmurun is a Greek loanword (smyrna).

n. Uyghur küži < Mongolian küǰi < Chinese xiāngchōu (Annemarie von Gabain, Alttürkische Grammatik, 3rd ed. [Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1974], 346).

a. The converbs sakïnïp (ll. 21–22) thinking and tep (line 25) saying bracket this sentence, but for a smoother English rendering I have only translated the first.

b. Physician here is expressed through hendiadys: otačï ämči. Van Tongerloo offers some important remarks on the broader religious significance of healing: "L’interprétation du Prophète-médecin n’est pas exclusivement attestée dans la Proche-Orient (ou en Europe), mais possède aussi des racines extrème-orientales chez Mani, et chez le Bouddha (comme ‘maître de la médecine’, bhaiṣajyaguru. L’image du Christ médecin était très populaire, non seulement dans le christianisme, mais aussi dans le manichéisme … Jésus s’insère donc dans la grande tradition des prophètes-guérisseurs, dans laquelle les hommes de Dieu non seulement utilisent la guérison (miraculeuse) afin de prouver leur mission divine, mais aussi pour démontrer leur grande compassion avec la souffrance humaine au niveau corporel et (—ce qui est plus important—) avec la douleur psychiche (van Tongerloo, Ecce Magi," 71, with further references cited there).

c. This grass-cure (ot yäm) is an apparent addition, myrrh and incense having been put together at the beginning of the list.

d. For the meanings of the gifts, see further Schilling, Anbetung der Magier, 178–80, and for frankincense and myrrh together, see 179 n. 87; and Zieme, Altuigurische Texte, 52–53 n. 236.

e. The verb yarlïka- command; be gracious, deign occurs three times in this section, the last two times together with the converb tep saying. To avoid an overt redundancy in English, I have translated the latter of these two differently.

f. The more usual Old Turkic word for bread is ätmäk/ötmäk, but here we have min (< Chinese miàn; cf. Clauson, Dictionary, 766b), which also means meal, flour.

g. See Erdal, Grammar, 480 for this sentence.

a. For aŋlap bilip (hendiadys) see Zieme, Altuigurische Texte, 54.

b. Uyghur ärdini derives (via Sogdian) from Sanskrit (van Tongerloo, Ecce Magi, 74); see also Aloïs van Tongerloo, Buddhist Indian Terminology in the Manichaean Uygur and Middle Iranian Texts, in Middle Iranian Studies: Proceedings of the International Symposium Organized by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven from the 17th to the 20th of May 1982 (ed. Wojciech Skalmowski and Aloïs van Tongerloo; OLA 16; Leuven: Peeters, 1984), 243–52 at 249–50.

c. For this sentence see Erdal, Grammar, 275.

d. Uyghur vrišti is an Iranian loanword: cf. Manichaean Parthian frēštag, Middle Persian frēstak, Sogdian frēštē (cf. also Armenian hreštak). As van Tongerloo (Ecce Magi, 74) notes, in Manichaean texts it is used for Mani.

e. For Uyghur dentar, cf. Middle Persian dēndār religious, devout, and Sogdian δēnδār priest, monk, elect. In Uyghur, the term means monk in Buddhist texts, elect in Manichaean, and priest in Christian (Zieme, Altuigurische Texte, 103–4).

f. Reading oglan-k(ı)ya.lar instead of oglan kï-z-lar (Peter Zieme, personal communication, 8 March 2018), which would be boys and girls.

The Rebellion of Dimas

A new translation and introduction

by Mark G. Bilby

Rebellion of Dimas (Reb. Dimas; CANT 78.2) is a brief narrative inserted into a single manuscript of the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew. This title does not appear in the Latin manuscript, but it is proposed here to avoid confusion with other apocryphal stories about the so-called Good Bandit (or Bon larron or Gute Schächer). Reb. Dimas furnishes one of several medieval backstories about the repentant criminal of Luke 23:40–43, this one depicting him as a Judean procurator’s adolescent son, who fails his father by allowing the Holy Family to cross the borders between Judea and Egypt where the father and son stand guard. This family heritage and border location make Reb. Dimas unique among the backstories of the bandit.

Contents

Following immediately after the description of the domestic and wild animals that accompany the Holy Family on their journey (Ps.-Mt. 19),¹ this episode begins (v. 1) by identifying Dimas as the bandit crucified to Jesus’ right. He is of a royal family, the son of a Judean procurator. Following the command of Herod to slaughter all male infants, Dimas joins his father to guard the borders between Israel and Egypt so as not to allow anyone traveling with an infant to pass (2). One day, his father leaves on a routine patrol of the surroundings. At that opportune moment, the Holy Family approaches (3). Divine mercy moves Dimas to greet this family, and especially the infant Jesus, with care and affection, even as he proceeds dutifully with his careful inspection and inquiry (4). The inspection frightens Mary, but Joseph cleverly finds an opening in Dimas’s initial evaluation of them as poor (5). Joseph shows great deference to the young inspector and cunningly applauds his efforts to find the infant born to a royal, wealthy family. Joseph plays the convincing part of an impoverished migrant whose family is fleeing starvation in the hope of finding food. His rhetorical role-play succeeds in persuading Dimas to rule out the Holy Family as a legitimate political threat to Herod (6). Dimas instead opts for charity and mercy, supplies their needs, gives his blessing to the infant and his family, and allows them to cross the border unmolested. Even after he releases the Holy Family, Dimas feels a tremendous longing for Jesus and desires to rejoin him, but he remains at his post out of respect for his father (7). When his father returns, Dimas tries to explain to him why he let a male infant escape (8). His father furiously reprimands him for abdicating their sworn duty to Herod to detain all infants, rich and poor, foreign and domestic (9). Word of the failure spreads, and the procurator himself comes to trial (10). To avoid the charge of treason, he disowns his son. Forsaken, Dimas now embarks upon a vicious life of violent banditry (11). The short story then subsides and the narration of the Holy Family’s Egyptian sojourn in Ps.-Mt resumes, specifically its account of the desert palm that bows at the command of the infant Jesus (Ps.-Mt. 20),² followed not long after with the Egyptian temple idols bowing down to Mary and Jesus (Ps.-Mt. 23) and the Egyptian governor Afrodisius, his army, and friends following suit (Ps.-Mt. 24). The Afrodisius episode typically concludes the A-family of Ps.-Mt., but in this particular manuscript, the interpolated story of Dimas resurfaces as an expanded ending that describes how the Holy Family returns from Egypt (12) and then how Pontius Pilate came to rule the Jews and punish rebels (13). Finally the text describes how the same bandit was captured, made his confession to Jesus, was tortured together with him, and ultimately joined him in beatitude (14).

Manuscripts and Editions

Reb. Dimas is currently known in only one source, a twelfth-century Latin manuscript held by the library of the Grand Séminaire in Namur, Belgium, there designated as manuscript 80 (A1a5 in Jan Gijsel’s study of Ps.-Mt. manuscripts).³ It belongs to the A-family of Ps.-Mt. manuscripts, which represent the earliest textual tradition, going back to the eighth century. Namur lat. 80 is described in detail in a study by Carine Billiard,⁴ who argues this manuscript originated in a French monastery. It is also featured significantly in a text-critical investigation of Ps.-Mt. by Guy Philippart.⁵ The only edition of the Latin text to appear in print thus far is by Maurice Geerard.⁶ The story about the bandit is found split into two segments, respectively found on folios 13v, 15–15v, 25 and 17r, 25–17v, 23, all written by the same elegant hand as the surrounding text. The first part of this interpolation falls between Ps.-Mt. 19 and 20 and thus the interpolation’s verses in the translation below have supplemental labels in keeping with this placement (19.3.1; 19.3.2, etc.). The second, shorter part of the interpolation provides an expanded ending for Ps.-Mt. Its verses also have supplemental labels below in keeping with its placement (24.2.1; 24.2.2; 24.2.3).

Literary and Theological Importance

Generally speaking, Reb. Dimas is one of numerous apocryphal narratives about the so-called Good Bandit. The chapter on the Hospitality of Dysmas in the first volume of this series provides a list and brief overview of several of these narratives. Among these legends, Reb. Dimas is most similar to two other stories from Western sources: the Irish Leabhar Breac and the narrative summary in Aelred of Rievaulx’s De institutione inclusarum. All three of them picture the bandit as a young person who opts to be a righteous rebel against the ways or instructions of a wicked father. Reb. Dimas varies slightly in this respect, since the father is not depicted as an evil bandit but as a dutiful representative of a wicked, ruling authority. All three feature Mary in only a minor role, whereas many Egyptian and Byzantine legends elevate the character, power, and/or piety of Mary.⁷ In this cluster of three stories, the focus remains on the beauty and/or power of the infant Jesus. Like Reb. Dimas, Leabhar Breac places the encounter en route to Egypt, but its story is set on Mount Sinai rather than the border between Judea and Egypt. Reb. Dimas and Leabhar Breac also share the uncommon detail about the Holy Family’s poor clothing. These three texts together reflect an elevation of youthful chivalry and virtue, including conscientious disobedience. One wonders whether they were intended to carry an implicit call for the young to leave family, join the Crusades, and become a friend of Jesus in and around the Holy Land.

Reb. Dimas also reflects numerous features common among broader clusters of literature devoted to the Good Bandit. It uses a slight variant (Dimas) of the most common name for the repentant bandit Dymas/Dismas.⁸ Apocryphal texts featuring that name, and even some without any name for the bandit,⁹ likely aim to promote devotion to the bandit as a saint and invite his followers to imitate his devotion and care for the Holy Family. Like at least four other versions of the bandit’s story, it comprises a self-contained interpolation found within a major collection of apocryphal traditions.¹⁰ All of these interpolations draw a consistent, intentional parallel between the bandit and the bending date-palm: both show deference to Jesus and/or Mary, both nourish the Holy Family, and both are ultimately planted in paradise. Like most Byzantine and Medieval Latin stories, Reb. Dimas has no interest in furnishing a backstory for the wicked bandit of Luke 23:39, something more typical of originally Syriac, Coptic, Arabic, and Ethiopic stories.¹¹ Reb. Dimas also follows many of the other bandit stories in associating his conversion with his vision of Jesus, whether individually or together with Mary.¹²

Dimas’s role as a procurator’s son is unique among stories of the bandit. The Judean-Egyptian border location here is also unique, given that other stories locate the bandit’s early life either in Judea/Palestine or Egypt, or, as in Leabhar Breac, Sinai. By positioning him on the border, Reb. Dimas may be attempting to invent a plausible explanation of how the bandit could participate both in the Holy Family’s flight to Egypt as well as the Judean crucifixion of Jesus. Another feature unique to Reb. Dimas is that the aged Joseph, rather than the infant Jesus or mother Mary, takes initiative and helps move the plot. To put it differently, among apocryphal stories of the bandit, Reb. Dimas has a unique tendency to take its infancy narrative cues from Matthew’s visionary Joseph and royally revered Jesus more than from Luke’s priestly/prophetic Mary and Wunderkind Jesus.

Language, Date, and Provenance

The only known source for this story, Namur lat. 80, is in Latin, and there is no reason to think it originally existed in another language. The manuscript dates to the late twelfth century, providing a terminus ante quem. It is difficult to set a precise terminus post quem. Earlier Ps.-Mt. A-family manuscripts date back as far as the eighth century, but they do not contain this interpolation.

There are several hints that Reb. Dimas responds to traditions seen in the Vis. Theo. and/or the Arabic recension of Hom. Rock.¹³ An interesting juxtaposition can be made between the emphasis placed on the Holy Family’s rich garments in Vis. Theo. and (Arab.) Hom. Rock in contrast to their filthy garments in Reb. Dimas. In the Eastern stories, the opulent garments are stolen, while in Reb. Dimas the filthy garments are cited as a reason to leave the Holy Family alone. Another interesting contrast suggestive of critical appropriation is that the infant Jesus is (temporarily) kidnapped in Vis. Theo. and (Arab.) Hom. Rock, while in Reb. Dimas Mary’s fear of her son being kidnapped proves unfounded. Despite this contrast, these texts still share an emphasis on Mary’s fear. And Reb. Dimas and (Arab.) Hom. Rock both describe the bandits explicitly as agents of Herod, though the bandits in (Arab.) Hom. Rock are soldiers of Herod, rather than a procurator and son following orders from Herod. Even if Reb. Dimas is indeed dependent on Vis. Theo. and (Arab.) Hom. Rock, the difficulty of dating those texts offers little assurance about the original date of Reb. Dimas.¹⁴

A twelfth-century origin is suggested by the similarities (but not clear dependencies) Reb. Dimas shares with De institutione inclusarum of Aelred of Rievaulx (mid-12th cent.) and the Leabhar Breac (12th–14th cent.). The story was certainly well known enough by the fourteenth century to be incorporated into an extended conflation of Dismas legends in French by Jean d’Outremeuse.¹⁵ That early reception, as well as the composition of Namur lat. 80 in a French monastery (as Billiard argues), suggests a French provenance.

Translation

Jacques Poucet used Geerard’s edition as the basis for an online French translation of several excerpts, which are interspersed with Poucet’s own running summaries.¹⁶ The translation here is apparently the first complete translation in a modern language. It is based on my autoptic analysis and fresh diplomatic edition of Namur lat. 80, and it includes footnotes where my edition varies from that of Geerard.

Sigla

Bibliography

EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS

Geerard, Maurice. Le bon larron, un apocryphe inédit. Pages 355–363 in Philologia Sacra: Biblische und patristische Studien für Hermann J. Frede und Walter Thiele zu ihrem siebzigsten Geburtstag. Band II: Apocryphen, Kirchenväter, Verschiedenes. Edited by Roger Gryson. AGLB 24.2. Freiburg: Herder, 1993. (Latin edition pp. 361–63.)

Poucet, Jacques. La Fuite de la Sainte-Famille en Égypte chez Jean d’Outremeuse: Un episode de l’Évangile vu par un chroniqueur liégeois du XIVe siècle. Folia Electronica Classica (Louvain-la-Neuve) 28 (July–December 2014). http://bcs.fltr.ucl.ac.be/FE/28/Egypt_MM/Egyptien/Juxta.htm#injonction. (French translations of several extended excerpts.)

STUDIES

Bilby, Mark G. As the Bandit Will I Confess You: Luke 23, 39–43 in Early Christian Interpretation. Turnhout: Brepols; Strasbourg: University of Strasbourg, 2013. (Further bibliography may be found here.)

———. The Hospitality of Dysmas: A New Translation and Introduction. MNTA 1:39–51.

Billiard, Carine. Présentation et description du manuscrit 80 (Grand Séminaire Salzinnes-Namur). 2 vols. Mémoire de licence en histoire, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1984.

Dzon, Mary. Out of Egypt, Into England: Tales of the Good Thief for Medieval English Audiences. Pages 147–241 in Devotional Culture in Late Medieval England and Europe: Diverse Imaginations of Christ’s Life. Edited by Stephen Kelly and Ryan Perry. Medieval Church Studies 31. Turnhout: Brepols, 2014.

Geerard, Maurice. Gute Schächer: Ein neues unediertes Apokryphon. Pages 85–89 in La spiritualité de l’univers byzantin dans le verbe et l’image. Edited by Kristoffel Demoen and Jeannine Vereecken. Instrumenta Patristica 30. Turnhout: Brepols, 1997.

Gijsel, Jan. Pseudo-Matthaei evangelium: Textus et commentarius. CCSA 9. Turnhout: Brepols, 1997. (See particularly pp. 109–10.)

Klapisch-Zuber, Christiane. Le voleur de paradis: Le Bon Larron dans l’art et la société (XIVe–XVIe siècles). Paris: Alma, 2015.

Kretzenbacher, Leopold. St. Dismas, der rechte Schächter: Legenden, Kultstätten und Verehrungsformen in Innerösterreich. Zeitschrift des Historischen Vereines für Steiermark 42 (1951): 119–39.

Philippart, Guy. Le Pseudo-Matthieu au risque de la critique textuelle. Scriptorium 38, no. 1 (1984): 121–31.

1. The numbering for Ps.-Mt. reflects the most recent critical edition by Gijsel, Pseudo-Matthaei evangelium, whose A-text and numbering is also used as the basis for the fairly recent English translation of Ps.-Mt. in AG, 73–113. See also the new translation and commentary by Brandon W. Hawk, The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew (Early Christian Apocrypha 8; Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2019).

2. By way of correction, my introduction to the Hospitality of Dysmas in MNTA 1 imprecisely stated on page 43 that the Reb. Dimas interpolation followed the bending palm story in Ps.-Mt. Since Reb. Dimas is actually a two-part interpolation, it is more accurate to say that the Ps.-Mt bending palm falls immediately after the first part and a few chapters before the second part of the interpolation.

3. Gijsel, Pseudo-Matthaei evangelium, 109–10.

4. Billiard, Présentation et description du manuscrit 80.

5. Philippart, Pseudo-Matthieu, esp. 125.

6. Geerard, Le bon larron.

7. E.g., Vis. Theo., Hom. Rock, Hist. Vir., (Arab.) Gos. Inf., Hosp. Dysmas, and Hosp. Perf. Band.

8. Dimas is also found in the Syriac version of Acts Pil., together (oddly) with the variant Dumakus. Dysmas/Dismas appears in most Greek and Latin versions of Acts Pil., as well as Hosp. Dysmas, and Leabhar Breac. Demas is used in Nar. Jos. and Acts Pil. Rec. A (Coptic, Armenian).

9. E.g., Ps.-Chrysostom, Holy Preparation (CPG 4877) and Ps.-Ephrem, Holy Preparation (CPG 4145.22; 4162.3).

10. See also Leabhar Breac, Hosp. Dysmas (within the M2 and M3 MSS of Acts Pil.), Hosp. Oint. Band. (within Birth Sav.), and Hosp. Perf. Band. (within Ps.-Mt.)

11. Vis. Theo., Hom. Rock, Hist. Vir., (Arab.) Gos. Inf., (Apocr.) Gos. John, and Mir. Jesus.

12. Vis. Theo.; (Apocr.) Gos. John; Mir. Jesus; Aelred of Rievaulx, De institutione inclusarum; Hosp. Oint. Band. Reb. Dimas is also quite similar to (Arab.) Hom. Rock §33, which says God inspired pity in his heart.

13. For the relevant sections of Vis. Theo., see Alphonse Mingana, Woodbrooke Studies: Christian Documents in Syriac, Arabic and Garshūni, Edited and Translated with a Critical Apparatus, vol. 3 (Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons Limited, 1931), 19–20, 26–29. For those of (Arab.) Hom. Rock, see Anne Boud’hors and Ramez Boutros, L’homélie sur l’Église du Rocher (PO 49.1; Turnhout: Brepols, 2001), 132–37.

14. Vis. Theo. is difficult to date, but it could have been composed prior to the sixth century. See Fatin Morris Guirguis, "The Vision of Theophilus: Resistance Through Orality Among the Persecuted Copts (PhD diss., Florida Atlantic University, 2010), 287. The earliest Coptic fragment of the text is dated to the tenth or eleventh century. See Alin Suciu, ‘Me, This Wretched Sinner’: A Coptic Fragment from the Vision of Theophilus Concerning the Flight of the Holy Family to Egypt," VC 67 (2013): 436–50 at 443. The originally Coptic Hom. Rock dates to the sixth or seventh century. See Rémi Gounelle, "Une légende apocryphe relatant la rencontre du Bon Larron et de la Sainte Famille en Égypte (BHG 2119y)," AnBoll 121 (2003): 241–72 at 242 n. 2. But the Coptic version lacks many of the parallels noted above. Its Arabic recension is difficult to date, since its manuscripts are of more recent vintage (17th–20th centuries).

15. Jean d’Outremeuse, Ly myreur des histors, chronique de Jean des Preis dit d’Outremeuse (6 vols.; ed. Adolphe Borgnet; Corps des Chroniques Liégeoises; Brussels: Hayez, 1864–1880), 1.1:355–62. The first mention of Dismas locates him among Herod’s armies guarding the border outside Bethlehem and as the one who grants the Holy Family safe passage (p. 355). Later he appears as one of twelve thieves, the one who allows the infant Jesus to be bathed in a fountain in his garden (p. 360).

16. Poucet, Fuite de la Sainte-Famille.

The Rebellion of Dimas

a

Introduction: Dimas’s background and duty

Matt 2:16

¹(19.3.1) Moreover, Dimas was the bandit—as will be read in what follows—hanged at the Lord’s right side. He sprung from the land of promise, from a free class, evidently from a royal family, as the son of a certain procurator. During the youth of the Lord’s incarnation, in that very crisis of Herodian cruelty against boys, he was ordered by the king to guard the borders with his father, lest some boy brought from somewhere escape some distance away.

Providence leads the Holy Family to Dimas

Matt 2:13

²(19.3.2) Yet Joseph, just as the Gospel says, was warned in a dream by an angel to take the boy and mother and flee to Egypt. On that very day, the father and son had gone outdoors, and where a plentiful crowd was accustomed to come, they watched the crossing. The father said to the son, Sit here. I will wander all around. After I inspect the crossroads, I will return to you. Watch carefully, lest I be found in contempt if someone escapes. It happened by God’s providence that he quickly wandered away, [and] behold, the son saw Joseph coming with his belongings and Mary holding in her arms a boy, yet also poorly outfitted.

Dimas is moved to compassion for the Holy Family

³(19.3.3) Converted to a pious disposition through the mercy of God, he drew near and intently looked at the boy. While they faltered in their fear, he greeted them in a most officious way, saying, May the Lord be with you and guide your journey, because though you all appear to be poor, you also possess a most distinguished descendant.b Obviously, the very fountc of goodness and compassion discerned him and banished his hardness of heart lest he be troublesome to them.

Dimas rationalizes making an exception

⁴(19.3.4) Nevertheless, attempting to understand, he said,a It makes sense, where you come from, who you are, and where you are heading, or whatever reason you are wearying such an elegant boy with your journey. Indeed, the king’s order we have is not to allow boys to escape. Yet perhaps on that account such a wonderful face is being carried away, that when the time is right, he will return and rule. If I will have seen you fleeing from the ruler’s hand and hiding the boy, you must think somewhat against his empire [and] will heed a different one.

Mary’s fear and Joseph’s cunning response

⁵(19.3.5) As he said these things, Mary, seeing that he was standing nearby, so attentively inspecting the boy, was choked up in her insides, fearing lest he snatch (Jesus) away violently. Joseph responded to them. Lord, he said, your lord, a powerful king, discovered by report that a powerful king had been born, and fearing the loss of his dominion, he appointed you the guarding of boys. Therefore, it is fitting that you all watch out for the sons of the rich men of this region who are capable of begrudging his superiority at a later time. Yet, when you see people squalid in misery, it is not appropriate to reproach them with these talks. Indeed, how is it possible to consider superfluous matters when someone wearied by several troubles wishes to perish? And it is certainly quite undistinguished for an adolescent of such exceptional, inborn quality to wish to ridicule with misfortunes the oppressed, whom he ought, if he has good sense, to refresh with consolations. Great people manage lofty matters sensibly, and to guard the peace they do not desist rooting out those they see opposed to them. I who have lived so long was a craftsman. To that extent a hand is idle, a home is empty. I valued what is most profitable. Please [allow] me and my partner to manage to find some food quickly, we who come from the region of Galilee, that is, from the city of Nazareth. We were exiled from there, coming to your borders. Driven by starvation, we are compelled to cross over. Indeed, we have heard from destitute persons who move around by begging that toward the borders of Egypt, whether by griping at doors or doing some work, they found abundantly as regards survival. Consider, lord, what you are asking, because we surely want to arrive there so that we and this boy whom you discern will have the strength to survive.

Dimas generously grants passage to the Holy Family

⁶(19.3.6) Hearing that inasmuch as they were migrants, it would not be reasonably possible for them to be hostile, he brought out a little something, staring at him. Admiring, blessing and magnifying the infant, interspersing other sweet words for the parents, and having nothing but love’s exceeding devotion, he permitted [them] to leave. Having been released, they hastened to get quickly through this trouble, fearing defeat from the rear.

Dimas deliberates what to tell his father

⁷(19.3.7) The young man returned whence he had come, expecting his father’s return. Meanwhile, he reconsidered and ardently longed for the boy’s charm, the sight of whom could not be sated. As his father delayed, he was struck motionless. He disparaged himself, because he had released them so quickly. His mind was seized by different thoughts, not knowing whether to await his father or to follow the boy. Respect for his father won out.

Dimas cautiously explains what happened

⁸(19.3.8) When he returned, he questioned him with an oath what he had seen. Both hiding the secret and avoiding a lie, he responded, Absolutely nothing except the poorest rustic, and a weak woman carrying a wailing boy, wrapped in filthy rags. Because I saw they were beggars, knowing that such would not concern the lord, especially because they were pilgrims, I permitted them to go.

The enraged father reprimands Dimas

⁹(19.3.9) His father’s anger greatly flared. He was to slit the throats of boys not only of this region, but also foreigners. The father said to him, "Have you not done the worst? Did you not hear the lord instructing me what I now tremble to recall, that if I love life and whatever I possess, by no means should I dismiss either a rich or poor man, either a native or a foreigner? The one in fact whom I heard appointed the butchering of his own true son and domestics—how would he not kill foreigners also?a What will I do now? Bound by oath, I will not be able to lie. If he convicts me of treason, he will kill me in place of the boys."

The father is put on trial and disowns Dimas

¹⁰(19.3.10) He asked the hour when he dismissed them, and bereft of the hope of finding them, he withdrew sad and terrified. When at last the massacre of boys was savagely finished, he did not dare to come voluntarily, but instead was summoned before the king, and he was found guilty of neglect for the empire. When he was held liable for high treason, he recalled the sequence of what had happened. When he was supported with their help, he quickly distanced such a crime from himself. Lest he be capitally punished for his son, he completely disowned him.

Dimas falls into a life of banditry

¹¹(19.3.11) What finally happened?b Expelled from his father’s house and neighborhood, he commenced engaging in banditry, and it became a tribulation, because he was hardened with weapons and perversity, and under the cloak of his parentage, the people did not dare to resist him. If ever he came back to himself, it was while thinking on the king’s such immense shame.a He would continue faithfully a little, because he would recollect that he alone, in consideration of piety, had disregarded his empire. Now then, let us return to the order of what happened.b

The Holy Family returns and Jesus grows up

Matt 2:19–23; Luke 2:40; 52

¹²(24.2.1) Not much time later an angel said to Joseph, Return to the land of Judah, for Herod is deceased. Archelaus his son has succeeded him in rule. While he ruled for a few years, Joseph, along with the boy and mother, returned. Passing over the land of Judah for fear of Archelaus, they returned to Nazareth. There our Lord Jesus Christ, for many years in submission to his parents, was growing in age, full of grace and truth.

Pilate’s rise to power

¹³(24.2.2) King Archelaus was truly hostile to the Jews. By their appeal, Augustus summoned him to Rome and condemned him, convicted of the charges presented, to exile in Gallic Vienna.c At last Pontius Pilate, sent by Augustus, accepted rule. He, in order to placate peace with the Jews, was eager to make reforms. Sending out his agents all around, he partly overthrew those who were seditious by hanging them.

Conclusion: The bandit joins Jesus in punishment and beatitude

Luke 23:42–43

¹⁴(24.2.3) Wherefore it happened in the years that followed that our Lord Jesus Christ, because he had been doing miracles, was jealously accused by the Jews. By false witnesses scrutinizing him, he was unjustly condemned. But the banditd remembered above as previously described was the cause of the Savior’s exile at infancy. After he had perpetrated crimes for many years, he fully endured the traps of Pilate himself. For his guilt he came to the gibbet. But, by his humble confession to his partner in punishment, he who was being tortured for his guilt, finding mercy beyond what he had asked, became his partner in bliss.

a. N has no formal title (inline or glossed) for this interpolated story. The story is woven neatly into the prose between Ps.-Mt. 19 and 20 without a break, marginal explanation, or the illuminated red titular script seen elsewhere in the MS (e.g., 1r, 1v, 17v). The only internal hint at the interpolation is that the capital D in its first word, Dimas, is slightly larger than typical of the MS.

b. A clever double entendre wherein the bandit’s assessment of the infant Jesus also prophetically foreshadows his auspicious future.

c. I.e., the infant Jesus.

a. There is a brief lacuna in the text, apparently an erasure by the scribe.

a. On Herod’s killing of his son Antipater II, see Josephus, Ant. 17.7.1; on his killing of other members of his household and court, 17.2.4.

b. A later scribal hand wrote Dimas nempe (Dimas of course) in the margin here to clarify that this part of the story is about him and not his father.

a. Apparently a reference to Herod the Great as described in the Matthean slaughter of the innocents (Matt 2:16). Herod’s shameful decree reminds Dimas of his righteous civil disobedience.

b. The first part of the interpolation ends here. The Ps.-Mt. narrative resumes with the story of the desert palm bowing to Jesus (Ps.-Mt. 20), the Egyptian temple idols bowing to Mary and Jesus (Ps.-Mt. 23), and the Egyptian governor Afrodisius and his cohort doing the same (Ps.-Mt. 24).

c. About Archelaus being exiled to Vienna, see Josephus, J.W. 2.7.3 and Ant. 17.13.2.

d. While the name Dimas does not appear in the main text of the second part of the interpolation, the plot does naturally connect back to the first part. Apparently in an effort to connect the two parts and two main characters of the interpolation explicitly, a later scribal hand wrote Dimas in the margin as a gloss on the term bandit here.

A Homily on the Life of Jesus and His Love for the Apostles

A new translation and introduction

by Timothy Pettipiece

The text presented here (Hom. Life Jesus; CANT 81; CPC 0150) was once commonly known as the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles. This misleading title has often obscured the fact that the text is actually a homiletic discourse belonging to a well-established genre of Coptic monastic literature. Homiletic cycles were commonplace in late-antique Egyptian Christian contexts, particularly those attributed to prominent eastern bishops such as Athanasius, Cyril, Theophilus, John Chrysostom, and Basil. Two are attributed to Evodius of Rome, a first-century disciple of the apostle Peter, and some scholars have argued that Hom. Life Jesus was composed by the same author. As a result, the text sometimes goes by the title On the Passion and the Resurrection 2—as distinguished from On the Passion and the Resurrection 1 (CPC 0149)—which is, indeed, attributed to Evodius.¹ Although homiletic in nature, such works do contain interesting apocryphal elements and should be considered alongside other examples of apocryphal literature and are particularly relevant for forming an understanding of the late reception of noncanonical traditions.

Contents

The beginning of the text is not preserved, but the surviving portion begins with the homilist exhorting to his brothers (no doubt fellow monks) about the love of Jesus for his followers, using various New Testament proof texts for illustration (chap. 1). Then the homilist furthers his argument by evoking the canonical episode of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes (from Mark 6 and 8 par., and John 6; chap. 2). The story is amplified with