Something that comes around every year at this time is a quotation from a certain “Scriptor Syrus,” supposedly about the origins of Christmas. Often it is supposed to be 4th century. This is the usual wording.
It was a custom of the pagans to celebrate on the same Dec. 25 the birthday of the sun, at which they kindled lights in token of festivity …Accordingly, when the church authorities perceived that the Christians had a leaning to this festival, they took counsel and resolved that the true Nativity should be solemnized on that day.
There is an excellent post at Andrew McGowan’s blog here about this “quote”, and the many errors and falsehoods involved, and a mention by Tom Holland. It is, in fact, a marginal note by an unknown Syrian writer (= “scriptor syrus”) in a manuscript of the works of Dionysius bar Salibi, a 12th century Syriac author.
There is a somewhat fuller translation by Ramsay MacMullen, Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries, Yale (1997), p.155:
A twelfth-century Syrian bishop explained,
“The reason, then, why the fathers of the church moved the January 6th celebration [of Epiphany] to December 25th was this, they say: it was the custom of the pagans to celebrate on this same December 25th the birthday of the Sun, and they lit lights then to exalt the day, and invited and admitted the Christians to these rites. When, therefore, the teachers of the church saw that Christians inclined to this custom, figuring out a strategy, they set the celebration of the true Sunrise on this day, and ordered Epiphany to be celebrated on January 6th; and this usage they maintain to the present day along with the lighting of lights.”[8]
p.244, 8. Dionysius Bar-Salibi, bishop of Amida, whom I quote from the Latin of G. S. Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis Clementino-Vaticanae 2 (Rome 1721) 164; and compare such other festivals as that of the Natale Petri of February, particularly in Fevrier (1977) 515, who protests against apologetic arguments to insulate the choice of date from any pagan antecedents or competition.
The overt polemical purpose of the modern author needs no discussion. But the reference is a useful entry-point to try to find the actual source.
What work are we talking about? What manuscript?
Assemani was an Eastern Christian who published a whole series of extracts from eastern authors, in the original language, in his Bibliotheca orientalis Clementino-Vaticanae, with commentary and translation in Latin. These are now online, and volume 2, page 164 may be found at Google books here. The text is in two columns. The original language is given, a text in italics is the translation, and Assemani’s own words are in normal text.
Assemani introduces our scholiast thus (Google translate follows):
Hunc tamen Armenorum ritum, quem hic rejicit Bar-Salibaeus, anonymus nescio quis Syrus probare contendit in margine apud eundem Bar-Salibaeum fol. 43. a tergo, his verbis:
However an anonymous Syrian, I don’t know who, tries to prove this Armenian rite, which Bar-Salibaeus here rejects, in the margin in the same Bar-Salibaeus fol. 43. on the back, in these words:
Then follows the Syriac text, and then the Latin translation prepared by Assemani:
Mense Januario natus est Dominus eodem die quo Epiphaniam celebramus, quia veteres uno eodemque die festum Nativitatis & Epiphaniae peragebaret, quoniam eadem die natus & baptizatus est. Quare hodie etiam ab Armenis uno dic ambae festivitates celebrantur. Quibus adstipulantur Doctores, qui de utroque festo simul loquuntur. Causam porro, cur a Patribus praedicta solemnitas a die 6. Januarii ad 25. Decembris translata fuit, hanc fuisse ferunt. Solemne erat ethnicis hac ipsa die 25. Decembris festum ortus solis celebrare; ad augendam porro diei celebritatem, ignes accendere solebant: ad quos ritus populum etiam Christianum invitare & admittere consueverant. Quum ergo animadverterent Doctores ad eum morem Christianos propendere, excogitato consilio eo die festum veri Ortus constituerunt; die vero 6. Januarii Epiphaniam celebrari jussere. Hunc itaque morem ad hodiernum usque diem cum ritu accendendi ignis retinuerunt. Et quoniam sol duodecim gradus ascendit Dominus natus est hac die tertiadecima, & sicut S. Ephram docet, Solis justitiae & duodecim Apostolorum ejus mysteria repraesentat. Numerus, inquit S. Doctor, denarius perfectus est. Die decima Martii uterum intravit. Numerus item senarius perfectus est. Die 6. Januarii utramque partem nativitas ejus reconciliavit.
In the month of January, the Lord was born on the same day on which we celebrate the Epiphany, because in the olden days the festival of Nativity and Epiphany was held on the same day, since he was born and baptized on the same day. Therefore, even today, both festivals are celebrated by the Armenians. The Doctors [of the Church] support this, who speak of both festivals at the same time. Furthermore, the reason why the aforesaid solemnity was transferred by the Fathers from the 6th of January to the 25th of December, they say was this. It was traditional for the pagans to celebrate the birth of the sun on this very day, the 25th of December; to further enhance the celebration of the day, they used to light fires: to which rites they were accustomed to invite and admit even Christian people. When, therefore, the Doctors noticed that the Christians were inclined to that custom, they devised a plan and established on that day the feast of the true Resurrection; but on the 6th of January they ordered that the Epiphany be celebrated. So they have kept this custom to this day with the ritual of lighting fires. And since the sun has risen twelve degrees, the Lord was born on this thirteenth day, and as St. Ephraim teaches, he represents the mysteries of the sun of justice and his twelve apostles. The number, says the Holy Doctor, is a perfect denarius. On the tenth of March he entered the womb. The same number is perfect. On the 6th of January his birth reconciled both parties.
I don’t understand the bit about “denarius”; is it a typo for “senarius,” which seems to mean “a multiple of six”? But it doesn’t matter for our purposes. Assemani then continues his work by introducing a different extract from fol. 125 concerning Caiaphas, of no relevance here.
So these words, by the anonymous “syrian writer”, are on folio 43v of the manuscript used by Assemani.
But what is this a manuscript *of*? What text?
Looking up to page 161, I see that Assemani is quoting material from folio 37v of this manuscript of a work by Dionysius bar Salibi, about the “progenitores” of Christ, from Luke’s gospel:
Quos Lucas refert Christi progenitores, eos ex Africano, Eusebio, Nazianzeno,Sarugensi, Graecisque & Syriacis Codicibus sic enumerat fol.37. a tergo:
He enumerates those whom Luke gives as progenitors of Christ, from Africanus, Eusebius, Nazianzen, [Jacob of] Sarug, from Greek and Syriac manuscripts, on fol. 37v:
He then continues with a passage from folio 161, on the nativity of Christ, before adding the material above from the scholiast. It’s odd that this jumps about like this.
On pp.157-8, it all becomes clear. Assemani is giving extracts from the Commentary on the Four Gospels by Dionysius bar Salibi, and he is extracting this material from a Vatican manuscript:
Commentaria in Testamentum Vetus & Novum. Et quidem expositio in quatuor Evangelia exstat in Cod. Syr. Vatic. 11. & in Cod. Syr. Clem. Vat. 16. a fol. 27. usque ad fol. 263. ejusque duo exemplaria in Bibliotheca Colbertina haberi testatur Renaudotius tom. 2. Liturg. Orient. pag. 454.
Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments. And a certain exposition on the four Gospels exists in Cod. Syr. Vatic 11. And in Cod. Syr. Clem. Vat. 16, from fol. 27. up to fol. 263. Renaudius testifies, Liturg. Orient. vol. 2, page 454 that two copies of this are held in the Bibliotheca Colbertina [i.e. now in the French National Library].
So… let’s take it further. A lot of Vatican manuscripts are online. But when I use the excellent Wiglaf guide to Vatican mss, and look at Vatican. Syr. 11, and Vaticanus Syr. 16, – I don’t think there is a “Clementine” subdivision of Syriac manuscripts – I find that neither has scholia on fol. 43v. Someone has messed up the numbering of the manuscripts since! It turns out that Assemani and his son did so, later in life, in the 1750s. The marvellous Syri.ac website tells me of a concordance by Hyvernat, “Vatican Syriac Mss Old And New Press Marks” (1903), online here.
But this too is useless. The old “Vat. Syr. 1” became Vat. Syr. 19, online here, but there is still no marginal note on folio 43v. Hyvernat does not explain the “Clem.” collection at all.
Thankfully Hyvernat tells us about a catalogue composed by Assemani and son, and Syri.ac gives links to text-searchable PDF’s!
- , Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae codicum manuscriptorum catalogus, in tres partes distributus, in quarum prima Orientales, in altera Graeci, in tertia Latini, Italici aliorumque Europaeorum idiomatum codices, vol. 2, 3 vol. Paris: Maisonneuve, 1758.
- , Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae codicum manuscriptorum catalogus, in tres partes distributus, in quarum prima Orientales, in altera Graeci, in tertia Latini, Italici aliorumque Europaeorum idiomatum codices, vol. 3, 3 vol. Paris: Maisonneuve, 1759.
Looking at these, if we do a text search for “Salib”, we find that manuscript 156 contains Dionysius bar Salibi. But… no scholion on fol. 43v. In fact the manuscript has been divided into two parts, and part 2 is also online here.
The catalogue for Vat. Syr 156 says the Luke portion begins on fol. 188, which doesn’t sound right. But at the end it says “see ms 155, fol. 161v” And when I look at the catalogue entry for Vat. Syr. 155 – it too contains Dionysius bar Salibi! The text search had missed it. Are these two, perhaps, the two manuscripts that Assemani used, now placed side by side? Hyvernat says look at the start of the catalogue entry, there may be the old shelfmark there. And…
CLV. Codex in fol. bombycinus, foliis constans 294. Syriacis recentioribus literis exaratus, inter Syriacos Codices, a nobis in Vaticanam Bibliothecam inlatos, olim Decimus sextus: quo continentur:
150. Folio manuscript on cotton-paper, consisting of 294 leaves, written in modern Syriac letters, one of the Syriac manuscripts brought by us into the Vatican Library, once the Sixteenth: which contains:
So this is indeed the one-time manuscript Vat. Syr. 16! Hyvernat expresses himself bitterly toward the authors of the catalogue – “of no practical use” -, and, after more than two hours working on this, I too am less than chuffed with them. The manuscript was never simply “Vat. Syr. 16”; prior to the reorganisation it was, in fact, Vat. Syr. Assemani 16; and the other manuscript, 156, was Vat Syr. Assemani 46. Aaargh!
But … viewing Vat. Syr. 155 on folio 43v – there is a long scholion! We’re there! It matches!
One last wrinkle. The catalogue (part 3, p.297) tells us that Luke is on fol.160v onwards. That’s is item 23 in this manuscript, which contains various texts. So what is fol. 43v part of? Well, item 21 is the commentary on Matthew, starting on folio 32, and continuing to fol. 148v. Not Luke, as anyone would infer from the original in the Bibliotheca Orientalis, unless they were very careful.
So this passage by “Scriptor Syrus” is, in fact, a scholion by some unknown person, on a passage in the Vatican Syr. 155 copy of Dionysius bar Salibi’s Commentary on Matthew.
It would be most useful to know exactly which passage of Dionysius bar Salibi is so annotated. But there we must leave this.
Update: 24 Dec. 2023. A useful comment from Syriacist Grigory Kessel is that Dionysius bar Salibi’s commentary on the gospels was printed in the CSCO series, with a Latin translation; and that the annotation above is against Dionysius’ comments on Matthew 2:1 (“Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying,…”), and the relevant passage is here. I imagine it relates to the paragraph on p.67, l.12 onwards, where 25 December is specified. Thank you!