to the carrying of a staff by the apostles on their first mission: we will quote the passage at length:
p. 132. Matthew says 'Nor even a staff,' ܕܐܦܠܐ ܫܒܛܐ but Mark here, 'Save a staff only,' ܐܢ ܠܐ ܫܒܛܐ: our Lord signifies this, that from others to whom they should go they should take nothing; that these might not suppose that they were sent for trade: that He might show that He is supplying all that they require; therefore this of Mark is not contrary to that of Matthew; because both of them admonish not to borrow from others, lest they should appear covetous; for they are not prevented from taking from their houses, because they need these things on the way: viz. a stick ܚܘܛܪܐ for leaning on, and sandals ܛܠܪ̈ܐ for the hardness of the road, and the thorns.
Others say that because Matthew had formerly been a publican, and had experienced the hardness of the passion of covetousness, he fitly removed them from this passion. Others say that in both of them they are forbidden a stick, and they read that Ell Alla which is interpreted not even:
ܘܩܪܘ ܠܣܘ ܐܸܠܵܐ ܐܲܠܐ ܕܡܪܓܡ ܐܦܠܐ
Here Ishoʿdad does not seem to be explaining the Old Syriac. He has before him the same difficulty in the Peshiṭta text as we have in the Greek; viz. that Matt, says the disciple is not to take a staff, and Mark says he is to take nothing except a staff: the same Syriac word ܫܒܛܐ in either case for ῥάβδον.
The first explanation which he gives is a piece of exegetical subtlety: one is not to take a staff, in the sense of taking one from someone else (Matthew's doctrine); but you may take one from your own house, and in fact it is necessary (Mark's doctrine): similarly for the sandals. To which is added a perversely ingenious remark that Matthew was the proper person to preach against covetousness.
Then comes the remark that perhaps the difficulty has arisen from a misunderstanding of an unpointed Syriac text, which could be read either
and not a staff
or
except a staff.
It is not quite clear whether the MS. of Ishoʿdad has the correct pointing: should it not be
'And they read Alla Ellō' which is translated μηδέ?
In this explanation Ishoʿdad really appears to be on the right track: it is one of the commonest confusions in Syriac, to have the two senses
