The Fourfold Gospel in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian
Matthew R.
Crawford
Department of Theology and Religion, Durham University
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
George A. Kiraz
James E. Walters
TEI XML encoding by
Joss Childs
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
2015
18.1
For this publication, a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
license has been granted by the author(s), who retain full
copyright.
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/article/hv18n1crawford
Matthew R. Crawford
The Fourfold Gospel in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/pdf/vol18/HV18N1Crawford.pdf
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute, 2015
vol. 18
issue 1
pp 9–51
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies is an electronic journal dedicated to the study
of the Syriac tradition, published semi-annually (in January and July) by Beth
Mardutho: The Syriac Institute. Published since 1998, Hugoye seeks to offer the
best scholarship available in the field of Syriac studies.
Ephrem
Diatessaron
Fourfold Gospel
Commentary on the Gospel
Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe
File created by Joss Childs
Abstract
Ephrem of Nisibis is unique among patristic authors for having
authored a commentary on Tatian’s gospel commonly known as the
“Diatessaron.” In this article I examine Ephrem’s corpus to
determine what evidence exists for his knowledge and use of gospel
versions beyond that of Tatian, most especially the fourfold, or
separated gospel. I point out that Ephrem, in keeping with Greek
and Latin authors, occasionally used poetic imagery for the fourfold
gospel, and, moreover, that he knew at least the Synoptic genealogies
and the Johannine prologue as distinct texts. It is undeniable,
therefore, that he knew of and to some degree used the separated,
fourfold gospel, even if this remained slight in comparison with his
reliance upon Tatian’s version. Furthermore, on six occasions
Ephrem refers to an unspecified “Greek” gospel version. Previous
scholarship has almost universally interpreted these passages as
references to a separated gospel in Syriac, but I argue that these are
best taken as references to an actual Greek version, and may well be
allusions to a Greek edition of Tatian’s work. Ephrem’s usage of
multiple gospel versions suggests that at this point in the Syriac
tradition, the concept of ‘gospel’ was fluid and more undefined than
would be the case in the fifth century when attempts were made to
restrict its sense to the fourfold gospel.
In the words of the late William Petersen, the fourth-century
commentary of Ephrem the Syrian “remains the premier witness to
the text of the Diatessaron.
1 William L. Petersen, Tatian’s Diatessaron: Its Creation, Dissemination,
Significance, and History in Scholarship, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 25
(Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), 115-116.
Moreover, Ephrem’s commentary
occupies a unique place in early Christianity as the only surviving
commentary on a gospel text other than the usual, fourfold gospel
2 Ephrem’s disciple Mar Aba also wrote a commentary on Tatian’s
gospel that survives in fragments. Cf. Gerrit J. Reinink, “Neue Fragmente
zum Diatessaronkommentar des Ephraem-schülers Aba,” Orientalia
Lovaniensia Periodica 11 (1980): 117-133.
Indeed, although he was, according to the report of Sozomen the
historian, greatly admired by Greek-speaking Christians such as
Basil of Caesarea and although he, like Basil, opposed the Arians
3 Sozomen, h.e. 3.16.3-4.
his commentary on the gospel text created by the second-century
heretic Tatian causes him to stand out sharply against the backdrop
of other fourth-century authors for whom the tetraevangelium was
the unquestioned standard. Undoubtedly Ephrem’s usage of this
peculiar gospel text is related to the fact that he wrote in Syriac and
lived on the border of the Roman Empire, spending most of his
life in Nisibis, before fleeing to Edessa when the Romans ceded the
city to the Persians after Julian’s disastrous eastern campaign.
Thus, Ephrem’s composition of a commentary on Tatian’s
gospel could be taken as an indication that he stands apart from the
Greek patristic tradition, inhabiting a Syriac world as it existed
prior to the time when the Greek church imposed itself upon what
has been called a “genuinely Asian Christianity.
4 Sebastian Brock, The Luminous Eye: The Spiritual World Vision of Saint
Ephrem the Syrian, Cistercian Studies 124 (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian
Publications, 1992), 15.
Indeed, in the
opinion of Sebastian Brock, Ephrem’s significance lies precisely in
the fact that he belongs to a version of Christianity that “was as yet
comparatively little touched by [the] process of hellenization, or as
we may call it, Europeanization or Westernization.
5 Ibid., 160.
On this
reading, we should not be surprised if Ephrem used a gospel text
quite unlike that current in Greek churches, since his contact with
the Greek world was minimal at best.
However, this picture of Ephrem as untouched by the forces
of Hellenization has recently been subjected to significant critique
in the work of Ute Possekel. Through a careful reading of the
Syrian’s corpus, Possekel has demonstrated beyond any doubt that
Ephrem was actually well versed in the philosophical milieu that
broadly characterized the late antique Mediterranean world, and
that he had a particular affinity for Stoic philosophy
6 Evidence of Greek Philosophical Concepts in the Writings of Ephrem the
Syrian, CSCO 580, Subsidia 102 (Louvain: Peeters, 1999).
As such, he
can hardly be said to be ‘un-Hellenized.’ This clear evidence of
Ephrem’s knowledge of Greek philosophical sources forces us to
reconsider his idiosyncratic usage of Tatian’s gospel. If the Syriac
culture of Nisibis and Edessa had absorbed Hellenistic philosophy
by at least the mid-fourth century, it is unlikely that the version of
Christianity that existed in those places remained untouched by
Greek Christian sources.
To be clear, there is good reason to think that churches in
Syriac-speaking areas were peculiar in their usage of Tatian’s
gospel. While there is slim evidence that Tatian’s work circulated
widely in the Greek world, it was quite possibly the earliest version
in which the written gospel reached the Syriac world, and it enjoyed
a primacy in some areas until the first half of the fifth century
7 For an up-to-date introduction to early Syriac versions, see Peter J.
Williams, “The Syriac Versions of the New Testament,” in The Text of the
New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, 2nd
ed., ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes (Leiden: Brill, 2013),
143-166.
However, given the interaction between Greek and Syriac sources
apparent in Ephrem’s writings, we should expect that his
knowledge of gospel texts presents a similarly mixed picture.
Hence, in what follows, I intend to investigate Ephrem’s corpus in
search of evidence that he knew and availed himself of not only the
Syriac version of Tatian’s gospel, but also the fourfold, or separated
gospel.
I wish to argue that, although Tatian’s work remained the
standard gospel version for Ephrem and his community, he
nevertheless was aware of the existence of the fourfold gospel, and,
moreover, he knew the Matthean and Lukan genealogies and the
Johannine prologue as distinct texts linked with their respect
evangelists. A handful of other passages in his corpus which display
a greater knowledge of evangelist traditions are likely later
interpolations and so do not reflect Ephrem’s own knowledge.
Furthermore, I suggest that Ephrem’s allusions to “the Greek”
gospel, although almost universally taken by previous scholarship
as references to a separated, Syriac gospel, are best understood as
allusions to an actual Greek version, and possibly to a Greek
edition of Tatian’s work. This picture of Ephrem making use of a
range of gospel literature is in keeping with Possekel’s argument
that he had a foot in both the Syriac and Greek worlds. Moreover,
it suggests that he occupied a transitional moment in the cross-
fertilization of Greek and Syriac Christianity. His willingness to
continue using Tatian’s gospel despite his awareness of the fourfold
gospel contrasts sharply with the attitude displayed two generations
later by Theodoret and Rabbula who insisted that only the fourfold
gospel in Syriac translation be used in the churches under their
care. To this degree Brock’s interpretation of Ephrem is correct,
since the Syriac milieu in which he wrote apparently tolerated a
greater diversity than would be the case in the following century.
One way to approach this topic would be to compare the
gospel texts cited by Ephrem with the Vetus Syra or with the
Peshitta to see if they correspond to either of the earliest known
Syriac versions of the separated gospel. This was the method
followed by F. C. Burkitt one hundred years ago, who concluded
that Ephrem certainly did not use the Peshitta, and more often
than not used Tatian’s version rather than the Vetus Syra
8 F.C. Burkitt, S. Ephraim’s Quotations From the Gospel, Texts and
Studies 7.2 (Cambridge: University Press, 1901), 56. The articles of T.
Baarda over the past several decades have mounted much additional
evidence for Ephrem’s usage of the so-called “Diatessaron.” See, e.g.,
“‘The Flying Jesus’: Luke 4:29-30 in the Syriac Diatessaron,” Vigiliae
Christianae 40 (1986): 313-341.
However, positive evidence that the Syrian usually used Tatian’s
gospel does not exclude the possibility that he also knew and
availed himself of other gospel versions. Therefore, I intend to take
a different approach, considering three different lines of inquiry:
first, the imagery for the fourfold gospel that occurs in Ephrem’s
corpus; second, Ephrem’s awareness of individual evangelists; and
third, what to make of the references in his corpus to “the Greek”
version. As will become clear in what follows, many of the passages
I will consider have been examined previously by Burkitt and
several others. However, several important passages have been
overlooked in these prior discussions, and even those passages
which have previously received some attention merit further
scrutiny. Hence, I intend to provide the most thorough
consideration thus far of the evidence for Ephrem’s knowledge of
the fourfold gospel.
1. IMAGERY FOR THE FOURFOLD GOSPEL IN EPHREM’S
CORPUS
Metaphorical imagery occupied a central place in Irenaeus’ famous
defense of the fourfold gospel, and such imagery became a
widespread and consistent feature of the Christian tradition,
whether in its Greek, Latin, or Syriac forms. Ephrem, who was
chiefly remembered for his poetic insight, also used such imagery,
though only in a very small number of passages. Three are
particularly relevant.
The first passage occurs in his Hymns on Faith 48.10. Here, at
the end of this hymn, Ephrem writes,
The Gospel pours forth (ܓܚܬ) in the type of the
Gihon (ܓܝܚܘܢ) to give water.
By the Euphrates (ܒܦܪܬ) its fruit (ܦܪܝܗ) is
represented because it multiplied its teaching.
He depicts its type by the Pishon (ܒܦܝܫܘܢ) and
the cessation (ܘܦܘܫܗ) (of its investigation.
It cleans us (ܕܩܠܬܢ) like the Tigris (ܕܩܠܬ) (by its
speech.
We will bathe and we will ascend through it to the
encounter in Paradise . .
9 Ephrem, Hy. de fide 48.10 (Edmund Beck, Des heiligen Ephraem des
Syrers Hymnen de Fide, CSCO 154, Scriptores Syri 73 (Louvain: L. Durbecq,
1955), 154). I am grateful to Paul S. Russell for allowing me to consult his
pre-publication version of the English translation of these hymns, which I
reproduce above.
Other early Christian authors, such as Hippolytus, Cyprian,
Victorinus of Petovium and Jerome used the four rivers of paradise
as a metaphor for the fourfold gospel
10 Hippolytus, comm. Dan. 1.18; Cyprian, ep. 73.10.3; Victorinus, In
Apoc. 4.4; Jerome, comm. Mt., prol.
so it is not without warrant
that Louis Leloir and Christian Lange have taken this passage as a
reference to the four gospels
11 Cf. Louis Leloir, Le témoignage d’Éphrem sur le Diatessaron, CSCO 227,
Subsidia 19 (Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1962), 72-73; Christian
Lange, “Ephrem, His School, and the Yawnaya: Some Remarks on the
Early Syriac Versions of the New Testament,” in The Peshitta: Its Use in
Literature and Liturgy: Papers Read At the Third Peshitta Symposium, ed. Robert
Bas ter Haar Romeny, Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Leiden 15
(Leiden: Brill, 2006), 166-67.
However, a closer examination
suggests that, while this interpretation of the passage is possible, it
is not required. First of all, we should note that the word translated
here as “Gospel” is not ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ but rather ܣܒܪܬܐ .%$#Though the
two terms have obviously overlapping semantic domains, the
former is clearly transliterated from Greek whereas the latter is a
native Syriac term. In the Peshitta New Testament these terms are
used interchangeably, with no discernible distinction between them,
and Tj. Baarda has argued that for Aphrahat they are also
synonymous
12 Tjitze Baarda, The Gospel Quotations of Aphrahat, the Persian Sage:
Aphrahat’s Text of the Fourth Gospel (Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit
Amsterdam, 1975), 323-324, disagreeing with F.C. Burkitt, Evangelion Da-
Mepharreshe, 2 vols. (Cambridge: The University Press, 1904), II.180,
regards the two words as synonymous for Aphrahat, since in his usage
“both words may mean both the Gospel-Book and the Good Message.”
Baarda does not discuss Ephrem’s usage of the terms. 13 Cf. Matthew R. Crawford, “Diatessaron, A
It is difficult to know for certain how Ephrem
distinguished them, if indeed he did so at all, but it is clear that he
called his gospel commentary an exposition of the ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ and
not the ܣܒܪܬܐ
13 Cf. Matthew R. Crawford, “Diatessaron, A Misnomer? The
Evidence of Ephrem’s Commentary,” Early Christianity 4 (2013): 362-85.
Hence, it is possible that ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ in his usage
refers to his written text while ܣܒܪܬܐ is associated more generally
with the proclamation of the good news, in which case we need not
read the above passage as a reference to the fourfold gospel.
Furthermore, there is certainly a poetic play on words going on in
this passage, since each of the names of the four rivers sounds
similar to the four qualities of the gospel mentioned in each line.
14 So also Edmund Beck, Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Fide,
CSCO 155, Scriptores Syri 74 (Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1967),
131.
Thus, the imagery of the four rivers may simply serve the purpose
of this poetic device, being used to illustrate the manifold effect of
gospel proclamation, rather than standing as an allusion to its
fourfold written form.
The next two passages much more clearly demonstrate an
awareness of the gospel in its fourfold form. Lange has drawn
attention to Ephrem’s Sermons on Faith 2.39-40, in which the Syrian
says, “Four fountains (ܐܪ̈ܒܥܐ ܡܒ̈ܘܥܝܢ) (flow down with truth for
the four regions of the world.” Just prior to this sentence he speaks
of the “former fountains” which are “sufficient,” and in what
follows he refers to the revelation given to Simon Peter. He then
tells his hearers that the “mighty stream” which came to Simon
flowed also to them, a torrent that is even greater than the “fount
of Eden.
15 Ephrem, Ser. de fide 2.39-48 (Edmund Beck, Des heiligen Ephraem des
Syrers Sermones de Fide, CSCO 212, Scriptores Syri 88 (Louvain: Secrétariat
du CorpusSCO, 1961), 8-9). Cf. Lange, “Ephrem, His School, and the
Yawnaya,” 167.
Ephrem’s intent in this paragraph seems to be to
exhort his hearers to be content with what Scripture says as they
contemplate the divine, rather than attempting to pry into matters
that remain hidden to human knowledge. In light of the reference
to Peter, the “former fountains” presumably refers to the divine
revelation given to the apostles, which Ephrem’s opponents
transgress by attempting to provide an explanation for the Son’s
generation. The “four fountains” then, is likely a reference to the
four gospels which preserve the apostolic witness to the revelation
of Christ. Furthermore, Ephrem’s cosmological notion that the
four gospels correspond to the four regions of the world was a
point first made by Irenaeus and then picked up by a number of
later Greek and Latin authors
16 See haer. 3.11.8.
so in this respect his understanding
of the fourfold gospel was in keeping with the wider Christian
tradition.
The final passage is even more telling than the previous three.
In his Hymns on Virginity 51.2, Ephrem once again poetically
interweaves imagery from creation with the themes of Scripture
and revelation. This time he notes that, just as the sun shone forth
in every place on the fourth day of creation, so also “our sun shone
forth in four books” (ܒܐܪܒܥܐ ܣܦܪ̈ܝܢ ܐܙܠܓ ܠܗ ܗܘ ܫܡܫܢ).17
17 Ephrem, Hy. de virg. 51.2 (Edmund Beck, Des heiligen Ephraem des
Syrers Hymnen de Virginitate, CSCO 223, Scriptores Syri 94 (Louvain:
Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1962), 162).
There can be little doubt that the “four books” mentioned here are
the four canonical gospels, from which the light of the gospel has
gone forth into the earth. Moreover, the geographic spread of the
gospel to the four regions mentioned above in the Sermons on Faith
is also evident here in the metaphor of the sun that shines upon all
creation.
These references to the fourfold gospel are few in Ephrem’s
corpus, but they do demonstrate that he was at least aware of the
tetraevangelium, though they leave open the question of to what
extent he actually used it. It is notable that in the unambiguous
reference to the fourfold gospel in the Sermons on Faith he is
particularly concerned with emphasizing the authoritative tradition
handed down from the apostles, which they had received from
Christ. The same intent is possibly also implicit in the latter passage
from the Hymns on Virginity. In other words, he does not speak of
the fourfold gospel as though it were the text regularly used by him
and his community, but rather as the original deposit of revelation
given by Christ to his followers. It is also striking that in these
passages he demonstrates no attempt to state the relationship
between the fourfold gospel and Tatian’s gospel upon which he
authored a commentary, nor does he betray any sense that these
gospel versions should be opposed one to another.
Moreover, we should also observe that Ephrem does not say
there are “four gospels,” but rather “four books.” In fact, he
displays a consistent pattern of speaking of the “Gospel” only in
the singular. This tendency is well illustrated in his Hymns against
Heresies 22.1. He begins this acrostic poem by comparing Scripture
to the alphabet. As the alphabet is complete and lacks no letter, so
too also is “the truth written / In the holy Gospel / With the
letters of the alphabet, / A perfect measure that admits / Neither
lack nor surplus.
18 Ephrem, Hy. contra haer. 22.1 (Edmund Beck, Des heiligen Ephraem
des Syrers Hymnen contra Haereses, CSCO 169, Scriptores Syri 76 (Louvain: L.
Durbecq, 1957), 78). I have here used the unpublished translation of
Adam C. McCollum which can be accessed at http://archive.org/details/
EphremSyrusHymnsAgainstHeresies22
The mention of truth being written indicates
that here Ephrem has in mind not just generic gospel
proclamation, but specifically the gospel in written form. It is
therefore notable to see him refer to the gospel in the singular (ܒܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ). Thus, even though he on occasion acknowledged
the existence of the gospel in its fourfold form, Ephrem’s idea of
“gospel” retains a notion of unity that corresponds with the
singular form in which he knew the gospel in Syriac.
In fact, Ephrem’s mention of “four books” corresponds to at
least one other roughly contemporaneous Syriac source that is of
great significance. The earliest copy of the separated gospels in
Syriac, the Codex Sinaiticus Palimpsest written in the late fourth or
early fifth century, calls itself the “Gospel of the Four Separated
Books” (ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ܕܡܦܪ̈ܫܐ ܐܪ̈ܒܥܐ ܣܦܪ̈ܝܢ)
19 Burkitt, Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe, II.31. My translation differs
slightly from that of Burkitt.
This parallel does
not necessarily imply a direct link between Ephrem and Sinaiticus,
but does suggest that the unknown Syriac scribe responsible for the
manuscript inhabited a Syriac milieu similar to that of Ephrem. The
scribe, who was likely accustomed to the gospel in its singular
form, sought to retain the notion of singularity for the word
“gospel” and preferred to speak of the plurality in terms of
multiple “books.”
2. EPHREM’S KNOWLEDGE OF EVANGELIST TRADITIONS
2.1 Evangelist Traditions in the Commentary on the Gospel
We have now seen that Ephrem knew that the gospel existed in a
fourfold form, but we should press further and look for clues that
he knew more about these “four books” beyond their mere
existence. It is, of course, possible that some of the gospel citations
in his corpus actually come from the separated gospel, but since
much of Tatian’s gospel presumably overlapped with the
tetraevangelium, it is often difficult to determine the source of any
given citation. However, information about the individual
evangelists is a more sure sign that Ephrem knew something of
what made each of the gospels distinct from one another.
In searching for evangelist traditions in Ephrem’s corpus, it is
best to begin with his gospel commentary before extending the net
more widely
slightly from that of Burkitt. 20 The authenticity of the commentary has been questioned by some
on the grounds that it is inconsistent with the authentic works of Ephrem
and on the basis of the fact that it exists in two separate versions, an
Armenian and a Syriac one, which diverge from one another in a number
of instances. Nevertheless, Carmel McCarthy, Ephrem’s English
translator, asserts that it would be “unduly sceptical to remove Ephrem’s
name totally from [the] commentary” (Saint Ephrem’s Commentary on
Tatian’s Diatessaron: An English Translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709, Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 2 (Oxford: Published by Oxford
University Press on behalf of the University of Manchester, 1993), 34).
For a recent survey of such matters, see Christian Lange, The Portrayal of
Christ in the Syriac Commentary on the Diatessaron, CSCO 616, Subsidia 118
(Louvain: Peeters, 2005), 36-68; id., Ephraem der Syrer. Kommentar zum
Diatessaron I, Fontes Christiani 54/1 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2008), 56-81.
Perhaps, as suggested in Sebastian P. Brock, “Notulae Syriacae: Some
Miscellaneous Identifications,” Le Muséon 108 (1995): 77, n.15, the
commentary derives from notes taken down by Ephrem’s disciples.
Similarly, Lange, Kommentar zum Diatessaron, 81, considers it likely that a
student compiled the work. In other words, while the commentary must
be handled with an awareness of potential interpolations, we should not
conclude that it tells us nothing about Ephrem’s gospel versions.
As I have noted in a previous publication, nowhere
in Ephrem’s gospel commentary is the title “Diatessaron” or the
name “Tatian” mentioned. Instead, Ephrem gave his exposition
the rather austere title Commentary on the Gospel (hereafter CGos), as
can be seen from the sole surviving Syriac manuscript, Chester
Beatty 709, as well as from later Syriac references to his work. This
title suggests that he knew Tatian’s work as simply the “Gospel,”
despite Eusebius’ report that Tatian called it the “Gospel through
Four,” or “Diatessaron.
21 Crawford, “Diatessaron, A Misnomer?” See Eusebius, h.e. 4.29.6.
In keeping with this generic title, the
gospel cross-references cited in the commentary are introduced on
six occasions as coming from an unspecified ܐܘܢܓܠܣܛܐ (“evangelist”)
22 CGos I.7; II.1; III.9; VII.15; IX.14a. At CGos I.26 the word also
occurs, though in a section that I shall argue below is an interpolation into
Ephrem’s text.
On two occasions the word is used to introduce a
citation from the Gospel of John (CGos I.7; IX.14a), three times for
the Gospel of Matthew (CGos II.1; III.9), and once for the Gospel
of Luke (CGos VII.15).
As can be seen from a passage early in commentary, these
citations attributed to an ܐܘܢܓܠܣܛܐ are best taken as references
to the gospel text upon which Ephrem is commenting, with the
result that the unspecified “evangelist” is probably the individual
responsible for this united gospel text, rather than one of the four
canonical authors. The Syriac gospel commented upon by Ephrem
began with John 1:1-5 before transitioning to Luke 1:5 and the
subsequent Lukan narrative about the birth of John the Baptist.
Hence John 1:5 and Luke 1:5 stand on either side of a “seam” at
which Tatian stitched together his source materials. As Ephrem
concludes the section of his commentary on John 1:1-5 he writes,
[The evangelist] next proclaims the inauguration
of the economy with the body, and begins by
saying that he whom the darkness did not
comprehend (Jn 1:5), nonetheless came into being
in the days of Herod, king of Judea (Lk 1:5)
23 CGos I.7 (Louis Leloir, Saint Éphrem, Commentaire de l’Évangile
concordant, texte syriaque (Manuscrit Chester Beatty 709), Chester Beatty
Monographs 8 (Dublin: Hodges Figgis & Co., 1963), 6).
ܐܩܦ ܕܢܪܙܝܘܗܝ ܠܫܪܝܐ ܕܡܕܒܪܢܘܬܗ ܕܒܝܕ
ܦܓܪܐ. ܘܫܪܝ ܕܢܐܡܪ ܕܡܢ ܕܚܫܘܟܐ ܠܐ ܐܕܪܟܗ.
ܗܘܐ ܕܝܢ ܒܝܘ̈ܡܝ ܗܪܘܕܣ ܡܠܟܐ ܕܝܗܘܕܐ
Although Ephrem is surely aware that the subject matter of John
1:1-5 differs markedly from that which is taken up in Luke 1:5 and
following, he seems here to attribute the authorship of both
passages to the same individual, likely the “evangelist” to whom he
refers earlier in his exposition of John 1:5. The author who
previously said the darkness did not comprehend the light “next”
said that this one came to pass in the days of Herod. Therefore,
this passage suggests that Ephrem’s “evangelist” mentioned several
times in the commentary was the individual responsible for the text
before him, rather than Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John individually.
There are, however, two passages in the commentary that seem
to present a different picture. One of these is almost certainly a
later interpolation though the second is possibly original. Ephrem’s
commentary as it is available to us today exists in two recensions,
one in Syriac and one in Armenian, and although the Armenian
usually represents a close rendering of the Syriac original, there are
passages which appear only in the Armenian and also some which
show up only in the Syriac. As a result of this divergence in the two
traditions, Christian Lange has argued that interpolations occurred
in both recensions
24 See Lange, The Portrayal of Christ, 36-68. See also the useful table
comparing the two recensions at Lange, Kommentar zum Diatessaron, 56-59.
One such passage that occurs only in the
Syriac version is the second half of CGos I.26, a paragraph that
evinces a greater knowledge of the individual evangelists than is
evident from the other unspecified references to the “evangelist.”
This paragraph occurs in the midst of Ephrem’s exegesis of the
annunciation to Mary, and Mary’s subsequent visit with Elizabeth.
Here Ephrem is primarily concerned with emphasizing Mary’s
descent from the tribe of Judah, rather than from the tribe of Levi,
despite the fact that Elizabeth, who was presumably a Levite, was
called her kinswoman (Luke 1:36). For Ephrem it is essential that
Mary be descended from David, and therefore from the tribe of
Judah, in order for Christ to be the heir of the promises given to
David. He makes this point by arguing on the basis of Luke 2:4,
which in his version states that both Mary and Joseph were from
the house of David (CGos I.25)
25 On the peculiar version of Luke 2:4 cited by Ephrem, see Leloir, Le témoignage, 84-88. Leloir posits that Ephrem’s version represents a later
revision of Tatian’s work, since Theodoret reported that Christ’s descent
from David was omitted by the supposed heretic. However, it is more
likely that this was Theodoret’s own contrived explanation for Tatian’s
omission of the genealogies, which he mentioned immediately prior to
discussing the issue of Davidic descent. In other words, we need not posit
a later revision of Tatian’s work to account for Ephrem’s text of Luke 2:4.
He next cites a string of cross-
references all of which mention Jesus’ Davidic lineage (Luke 1:32;
Isa 11:1; Luke 1:69; 3 Cor 5; 2 Tim 2:8), and then suggests that the
tribes of Levi and Judah had mixed through the marriage of Aaron
and the sister of Nahshon (cf. Exod 6:23) (CGos I.26)
26 CGos revision of Tatian’s work to account for Ephrem’s text of Luke 2:4. 26 CGos I.26 (Leloir 1963, 24-26). In the midst of this paragraph, the
Syriac recension contains three additional cross-references that do not
appear in the Armenian version, and which are likely interpolations (Rom
1:2-3; Heb 7:14; Acts 2:30). Cf. Lange, The Portrayal of Christ, 37-42.
Thus, Jesus’ Davidic lineage is established and Mary’s kinship
to Elizabeth is explained. Having sufficiently made his point,
Ephrem’s exposition seems to be complete. However, the Syriac
text subsequently launches into a new discussion regarding the
genealogies of Matthew and Luke, in which both authors are
named, with Luke even being called “Luke the evangelist”
(ܠܘܩܐ ܐܘܢܓܠܣܛܐ)
27 CGos I.26 (Leloir 1963, 26).
The apparent intention of this paragraph is
to reconcile the two discordant genealogies in the canonical gospels
(CGos I.26), a concern that did not feature at all in the previous
section. The solution proffered is that Matthew wrote regarding
Mary’s descent and Luke about that of Joseph
28 Although this solution to the problem appears to be unique to the
commentary, the discordant genealogies vexed other early Christian
authors as well. See Eusebius, h.e. 1.7.1-17, which records the explanation
offered by Julius Africanus who highlighted the possibility of Levirate
marriage. Eusebius reports the same material in his qu. Steph. 4.
If authentic, this passage would serve as indisputable evidence
that Ephrem knew at least some traditions from the separated
gospels, both because Ephrem explicitly names Matthew and Luke,
and because it is known from Theodoret’s report that Tatian’s
gospel omitted the genealogies
29 Theodoret, haer. I.20 (PG 83.372). The text and translation are also
given at Petersen, Tatian’s Diatessaron, 41-42. The Arabic Diatessaron, a
medieval translation from a Syriac exemplar, also provides supporting
evidence here. There are two recensions of the Arabic. In one the
genealogies are included as an appendix, and in the other the genealogies
are situated within the infancy narrative. This divergence among the
Arabic witnesses testifies to an earlier common ancestor from which the
genealogies were absent, and to which later scribes have made additions in
order to bring the text more into line with the accepted, fourfold form.
See A.S. Marmardji, M Diatessaron de Tatien (Beirut: Imprimerie catholique,
1935), 36; Petersen, Tatian’s Diatessaron, 136-137. Recently David Pastorelli
has used this passage in CGos I.26 to argue that the genealogies actually
were originally in Tatian’s work (“The Genealogies of Jesus in Tatian’s
Diatessaron: The Question of their Absence or Presence,” in Infancy Gospels:
Stories and Identities, 216-30). However, Pastorelli fails to recognize that this
passage is an interpolation. Moreover, he places too much weight on the
so-called “Western witnesses,” not taking into account the recent work of
Ulrich Schmid, “In Search of Tatian’s Diatessaron in the West,” Vigiliae
Christianae 57 (2003): 176-99. 30 The addition material
However, there is reason to think
otherwise. As noted above, this passage does not occur in the
Armenian recension
30 The addition material begins with ܘܛܘܒ (Et iterum in Leloir’s
Latin translation).
which immediately casts a shadow of
suspicion upon its authenticity, a suspicion that is strengthened by
the fact that the additional material is internally incoherent with the
surrounding context. In the midst of the prior discussion in CGos
I.25, Ephrem states that Scripture reckons genealogies ܫܪ̈ܒܬܐ
through male descent, and “is silent” ܫܬܩ about the genealogies
of women
31 CGos I.25 (Leloir 1963, 24). Lange, The Portrayal of Christ, 42, also
notes the internal contradiction in CGos I.25-26 and concludes that the
extra material is an interpolation.
This same point, that Scripture accounts genealogies
through men rather than women, is also made by Ephrem in his Hymns on the Nativity 2.13, where he again notes that both Mary and
Joseph were of Davidic descent
32 Ephrem, Hy. de Nativitate 2.13.
It is difficult to see how to
reconcile this clearly Ephremic idea with the additional material at
CGos I.26, which states explicitly that “Matthew wrote concerning
the geneaology of Mary (ܡܬܝ ܕܝܢ ܫܪܒܬܗ̇ ܗܘ ܕܡܪܝܡ ܐܟܬܒ), This
discrepancy suggests that the additional material is best regarded as
a later interpolation made sometime following the division of the
manuscript tradition into the two recensions available today. As
such, it tells us nothing about Ephrem’s own knowledge of gospel
traditions. Given the age of the Syriac manuscript of Ephrem’s
commentary (late fifth or early sixth century), this addition
provides further evidence alongside Theodoret’s report that some
in the fifth-century Syriac-speaking communitiy were troubled by
the genealogies of Jesus, whether how to reconcile them or their
omission from Tatian’s gospel.
There is one further passage in the commentary which appears
to indicate knowledge of individual gospel traditions. The very end
of the Syriac manuscript contains a brief paragraph as a conclusion
or appendix, which bears the title “The Evangelists” (ܐܘܢܓܠܝ̈ܣܛܐ),
and which offers an explanation as to why there are four gospels.
The author of this short section acknowledges that “the words of the
apostles are not in agreement” (ܕܠܐ ܕܝܢ ܫܠܡܢ ܡ̈ܠܝܗܘܢ ܕܫܠܝ̈ܚܐ),
but explains this discrepancy by noting that they did not write “the
Gospel” (ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ) at the same time, since, unlike the giving of
the tablets to Moses, they each wrote by the Spirit under various
circumstances (cf. Jer. 31:31-33). In what follows the author of this
paragraph gives a brief recounting of the origins of the gospels:
Matthew is said to have written in Hebrew which others later
translated into Greek; Mark followed Peter and wrote from Rome
after the faithful persuaded him to take up the task; Luke began his
account with the “baptism of John;” and finally John, finding that
Matthew and Luke had spoken of the “genealogies [showing] that
he was the Son of Man” (ܫܪ̈ܒܬܗ ܕܡܪ ܐܢܫܐ ܗܘ), ,(,+)*decided to
highlight his divinity by beginning with “In the beginning was the
Word.
33 CGos, Evangelistae (Leloir 1963, 250). Leloir did not number this
as a section of the commentary, but set it apart as a separate paragraph
titled “Evangelistae”, the same title it bears in the Syriac manuscript.
If authentic, then this passage provides undeniable evidence
that evangelist traditions from the Greek church had reached into
Ephrem’s Syriac world. The comment about Matthew goes back to
a report of Papias preserved by Eusebius
34 Eusebius, h.e. 3.39.16.
The description of
Mark’s writing activities also draws on statements from Papias and
Clement of Alexandria, though, once again, these were mediated
via Eusebius
35 Papias’ account of Mark’s origins is recorded in Eusebius, h.e.
3.39.15. Compare the two versions of Clement’s report in h.e. 2.15.1-2 and
6.14.6-7. On the distinction between the two passages, see Francis
Watson, Gospel Writing: A Canonical Perspective (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2013), 442-444.
Furthermore, the fact that the author of this
paragraph alludes to the Matthean and Lukan genealogies in order
to introduce the fourth gospel likewise draws on earlier tradition.
In terms of its structure, this passage is similar once again to
Eusebius’ summary of Clement’s argument that the gospels with
the human genealogies were written first, and that John, seeing the
“bodily facts” recorded in them, decided to compose a “spiritual
gospel.
36 Eusebius, h.e. 6.14.5-7. In between his description of the gospels
with genealogies (i.e., Matthew and Luke) and his description of John,
Eusebius has inserted Clement’s report about Mark, thereby obscuring the
original contrast between Matthew and Luke on the one hand and John
on the other. On the interpolation and the interpretation of this passage,
see Watson, Gospel Writing, 432-433.
However, despite this clear structural similarity, the way
this paragraph describes the two genealogies is idiosyncratic,
asserting that “one” of these evangelists spoke about Christ’s
“incarnation and about his kingdom from David” while another
evangelist highlighted his descent “from Abraham.” Matthew’s
genealogy does indeed begin with Abraham, so this is
straightforward. However, there is no obvious reason why
someone would refer to the Lukan account as being “about his
kingdom from David,” a description that is, as far as I am aware,
without parallel. Both the Matthean and the Lukan genealogies
include David, so the description offered is unsuccessful if it is an
attempt to identify what is distinctive about Luke’s genealogy.
This final paragraph occurs in both the Syriac and in the
Armenian recensions of the commentary, so we might initially be
inclined to regard it as authentic. However, Lange has highlighted
the fact that some interpolations occurred prior to the division of
the Syriac and Armenian versions, so this observation alone is
insufficient to settle the matter. The paragraph has no connection
with what precedes it, nor with any other portion of the
commentary, leading Leloir and McCarthy to question its
authenticity
37 Leloir 1963, 251, n.1; Leloir, Éphrem de Nisibe: Commentaire de
l’Évangile concordant ou Diatessaron, Sources Chrétiennes 121 (Paris: Éditions
du Cerf, 1966), 409, n.1; McCarthy, Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron, 344,
n.1.
Furthermore, the awareness of specified
“evangelists” in the plural contrasts with the singular and undefined
usage elsewhere in the commentary. Moreover, the Armenian adds
a further paragraph describing the journeys and missions of the
apostles, which demonstrates that the end of a commentary was a
prime location for later scribes to supplement the preceding
discussion with traditional material
38 Louis Leloir, Saint Éphrem. Commentaire de l’Évangile concordant, version
arménienne, CSCO 145, Scriptores Armeniaci 2 (Louvain: L. Durbecq,
1954), 247-248. In the Armenian, this section is titled “Evangelists and
Apostles,” in contrast to the Syriac which has simply “Evangelists.”
For these reasons it seems
most likely that this paragraph is not authentic, in which case it
should not be used as evidence of Ephrem’s knowledge of
evangelist traditions.
Even if not authentically Ephremic, this passage does shed
valuable light on Syriac Christianity. Whenever this interpolation
occurred, it must have been prior to the copying of Chester Beatty
709, a fifth- or sixth-century manuscript. It was during this same
period that Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History was making itself known
in the Syriac world, which agrees with the fact that the paragraph
reveals the influence of Eusebius’ reports about gospel origins.
Eusebius’ works were translated into Syriac at an early stage,
possibly even within his own lifetime. The oldest Syriac
manuscript, written in Edessa in 411 (BM Add. 12,150), contains
several of his works, and the oldest extant witness to his
Ecclesiastical History in any language is a Syriac manuscript dated to
462
39 William Wright and Norman McLean, The Ecclesiastical History of
Eusebius in Syriac (Cambridge: University Press, 1898), ix. Wright and
McLean suggest that the text had already gone through several copies by
this point.
Eusebius is known to have had some connection with
Edessene sources, given his knowledge of the Agbar legend
40 Eusebius, h.e. 1.3, on which see Sebastian Brock, “Eusebius and
Syriac Christianity,” in Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism, ed. Harold W.
Attridge and Gohei Hata, Studia Post-Biblica 42 (Leiden: Brill, 1992).
and
certainly by the early fifth century at the latest this cultural
transmission was going in the reverse direction as well. Whoever
authored this paragraph was apparently drawing on the Ecclesiastical
History to supplement Ephrem’s commentary, which probably
came to appear out-of-date rather quickly once the fourfold gospel
was established as the norm.
2.2 Evangelist Traditions in Ephrem’s Broader Corpus
At this point we should consider whether this pattern we have
observed in Ephrem’s Commentary on the Gospel is consistent with
what we find throughout his corpus. To begin with, it is important
to observe that the transliterated term ܐܘܢܓܠܣܛܐ”) evangelist”),
noted above as occurring on a handful of occasions in the
Commentary on the Gospel, is exceedingly rare in Ephrem’s writings.
Edmund Beck, who during the mid-twentieth-century provided
new editions for a number of Ephrem’s works, noted that the only
other occurrence of the word in Ephrem’s genuine corpus comes
in his Commentary on Genesis, in which the Syrian introduces a
citation of John 1:3 with the formula, “the evangelist has said.”
41 Edmund Beck, “Der syrische Diatessaronkommentar zu Jo. 1, 1-
5,” Oriens Christianus 67 (1983): 20, n.28. For the reference to, “the
evangelist,” see Comm. Gen. I.28 (R.-M. Tonneau, Sancti Ephraem Syri in
Genesim et in Exodum Commentarii, CSCO 152, Scriptores Syri 71 (Louvain:
L. Durbecq, 1955), 23).
The fact that the word shows up at least once elsewhere in
Ephrem’s corpus demonstrates that its occurrence in the
Commentary on the Gospel cannot be used as an argument against
Ephremic authorship of the gospel exposition, though certainly it
presents an unusually high concentration of the term, perhaps due
to the fact that it is, after all, a commentary on a gospel text. Still,
the paucity of the term in Ephrem’s corpus is striking and speaks
against it having been a common word in his Syriac milieu.
Furthermore, Ephrem’s gospel citations typically lack any
attribution to a specified evangelist. In his study of Ephrem’s gospel
citations Burkitt pointed out that he knew of only two passages from
his corpus in which the Syrian refers to an individual evangelist
42 Burkitt, S. Ephraim’s Quotations, 59-61. Burkitt cites and translates
both Syriac passages.
The first passage comes from Ephrem’s Hymns on Faith. Here he
states that “John is like Moses” and “the one ‘In the beginning’ is
like the other ‘In the beginning.
43 Hy. de fide 35.2 (Beck, Hymnen de Fide, 114).
The second passage noted by
Burkitt is similar, and occurs in a memra on the Johannine
prologue preserved in fragmentary form by Philoxenus of Mabbug.
Here Ephrem states that “John” “began with the generation of the
Son (ܐܫܪܒܗ ܕܒܪܐ) from the point where [it says] ‘Through him all
things were created’.” The following fragment from this homily
likewise notes that when “John” said the Word was “in the
beginning” he was calling in Moses as a witness
44 Burkitt cites the fragments of this homily from the older edition of
Ephrem’s works by Lamy, but see the new edition of Philoxenus’ treatise,
along with the Ephrem fragments, in F. Graffin, Patrologia Orientalis 41
(Turnhout: Brepols, 1982), 62-63.
In addition to the naming of the evangelist John, we should
also note that the version of John 1:3 cited here differs from that
given elsewhere in Ephrem’s corpus. In the fragmentary memra he
cites the passage in the form ܒܐܝܕܗ ܐܬܒܪܝ ܟܠ ܡܕܡ, whereas in
his Commentary on the Gospel, the passage is cited as ܗܘܐ ܟܠ ܡܕܡ ܒܗ.45>
45 See CGos I.6 (Leloir 1963, 4).
Since these fragments are preserved in a work by
Philoxenus, we might conjecture that Philoxenus has emended
Ephrem’s original citation to correspond to his own gospel version.
However, it is fairly certain that Philoxenus’ version read ܒܐܝܕܗ ܗܘܐ ܟܠܡܕܡ
46 J. Edward Walters, “The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed
from the Writings of Philoxenus of Mabbug,” Hugoye: Journal of Syriac
Studies 13 (2010): 217.
so Philoxenus was probably not responsible for the
alteration. In fact, none of the Syriac versions available to us today
have ܐܬܒܪܝ for ἐγένετο of John 1:3
47 See George Anton Kiraz, Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels,
Volume 4: John (Brill: Leiden, 1996), 3.
leading Burkitt to
remark, “the texts used by Ephraim in the beginning of the Fourth
Gospel are thus diverse and their source is not at all clear.
48 Burkitt, Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe, II.139-140. For further
discussion of this issue, see Burkitt, S Ephraim’s Quotations, 59-62. For a
more recent listing of all of Ephrem’s citations of John 1:3, see Louis
Leloir, L’Évangile d’Éphrem d’après les oeuvres éditées: Recueil des textes, CSCO
180, Subsidia 12 (Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1958), 98-99.
We
should also consider the possibility that the version of John 1:3
cited by Ephrem here is something less than an exact quotation. He
introduces the passage by saying that John began “from where
(ܡܢ ܟܪ) all things were created through him,” and notably does not
use the citation marker ܠܡ. Therefore, the verb ܐܬܒܪ may be
Ephrem’s own gloss on the more ambiguous ܗܘܐ of John 1:3, in
which case we need not posit a distinct, now lost, Syriac version
lying behind the apparent citation
49 Sebastian Brock, “The Use of the Syriac Fathers for New
Testament Textual Criticism,” in The Text of the New Testament in
Contemporary Research, 420, notes “the difficulty (especially in earlier
writers) of identifying what is a quotation and what is a gloss or
paraphrase. Even in cases where the author may seem to introduce a
quotation as direct, by using lam, ‘it says,’ he may nevertheless insert his
own gloss on a particular word within the quotation.”
In addition to these two references to John the evangelist,
there are at least two other relevant passages that Burkitt failed to
mention. The first is a brief allusion in Ephrem’s Hymns on Virginity,
in which the poet does not explicitly name John the evangelist, but
does identify the author of the Johannine prologue with the
beloved disciple who reclined upon Jesus in the upper room (cf.
John 13:23-25), implying an awareness of the fourth gospel as a
distinct source
50 Hy. de virg. 15.4-5 (Beck, Hymnen de Virginitate, 52-53). Hy. de virg. 25
is also devoted to a meditation on the beloved disciple, though again
Ephrem does not name him. However, at CGos XX.27 Ephrem makes
much the same point as in Hy. de virg. 25, comparing Mary and John, and
in this instance he does name the disciple.
The second passage also refers to individual
evangelists, though this time it is the synoptic gospels that are in
view. At the end of the second of his Hymns on the Nativity, Ephrem
notes that “Luke and Matthew traced his [i.e., Christ’s] lineage: Son
of Abraham they reckoned him—and of David and of Joseph, so
that by the learned mouths of two witnesses ...
51 Ephrem, Hy. de Nativitate 2.22 (Edmund Beck, Des heiligen Ephraem
des Syrers Hymnen de Nativitate (Epiphania), CSCO 186, Scriptores Syri 82
(Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1959), 19). English translation taken
from Ephrem the Syrian: Hymns, trans. Kathleen E. McVey (Mahwah, NJ:
Paulist Press, 1989), 81.
This passage not
only mentions the evangelists and their genealogies, but also
provides a theological rationale for the existence of genealogies in
two sources. In addition, in hymn nine of this series, Ephrem
singles out Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth for special attention,
undoubtedly because they are the only three women to appear in
the Matthean genealogy
52 Ephrem, Hy. de Nativitate 9.7-16. Tamar and Ruth are also
mentioned in Hy. de Nativitate 1.12-13.
In the light of these passages, it is
difficult to avoid the conclusion that Ephrem knew not only of the
existence of the genealogies, but some specific details about their
content. We should observe, however, that the genealogies are not
viewed here as a potential problem needing to be resolved, as was
the case in the already mentioned interpolation in the Commentary on
the Gospel. Rather they harmoniously function together to attest to
Christ’s origins.
There is yet another passage in Ephrem’s corpus also
overlooked by Burkitt, also pertaining to the fourth gospel, but it is
of questionable authenticity. In 1917 J. Schäfers, in his
Evangelienzitate in Ephraems des Syrers Kommentar zu den paulinischen
Schriften, first drew attention to a passage from an Ephesians
Commentary attributed to Ephrem that survives only in
Armenian
53 J. Schäfers, Evangelienzitate in Ephraems des Syrers Kommentar zu den
paulinischen Schriften (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1917), 27-31.
In the preface to the commentary, the author notes
that “the Ephesians were taught by John the evangelist,” who,
when he “saw that his three companions had composed their
gospels (
evangeliorum
) from the body (
a corpore
)," began his own
gospel with Christ’s descent not “from Mary, or from David, and
from Abraham, and from Adam,” but rather “from the beginning
was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was
God.
54 Leloir, Le témoignage, 71-72. I am translating here from Leloir’s Latin
translation of the Armenian text. A Latin translation of the Armenian text
can also be found at S. Ephræm Syri commentarii in epistolas D. Pauli (Venice:
Typographia Sancti Lazari, 1893), 140. There is no translation into any
modern language, as far as I am aware. The full extract reads: “Ephesii
edocti erant a Iohanne evangelista. Hic, quia viderat tres socios suos
initium evangeliorum suorum a corpore fecisse, ne perpendentes
existimarent homines, hominem (tantum) fuisse illum qui apparuit ipsi, et
non Filium Dei, declinavit a sociis suis, ut faveret iter novum, quod non
fecerant socii. Initium itaque fecit ille dicendo in capite evangelii sui, non
quod natus esset ille e Maria, aut e Davide, et ex Abrahamo, et ex Adamo,
sed: A principio erat Verbum, et ipsum Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus
erat ipsum Verbum. Apostolos igitur, quoniam sciebat Ephesios in
divinitate Domini nostri perfectos esse iuxta evangelium Iohannis
praedicatoris eorum, reliquit istud, quia perfecti erant in eo, et incepit ille
scribere eis de dispensatione corporis eius.”
This passage is largely in keeping with what we saw above in
the final paragraph of the Commentary on the Gospel. It has exactly the
same structure, introducing the fourth gospel by way of a contrast
with the beginning of the synoptics, and, moreover, summarizing
the message of the fourth gospel by way of quoting its opening
lines. Furthermore, as in the previous passage, so also here the
description of the synoptics is somewhat unclear. Although Mark is
presumably in view as well, since the passage speaks of “three”
gospels prior to John’s writing, the phrase “from Mary, or from
David, and from Abraham, and from Adam” hardly serves as a
description for the Markan gospel, since it includes no infancy
narrative. Furthermore, it is not even clear what in this passage
serves to refer to Matthew and Luke. Neither include Mary in their
genealogies of Jesus, though both include David and Abraham, and
only Luke includes Adam (Matt 1:1-18; Luke 3:23-38). Thus,
although we can say with certainty that this passage draws upon the
same Clementine-Eusebian tradition that contrasted the
genealogies of Matthew and Luke with the opening of John, it
appears that again the information has somehow become confused
in transmission, just as in the final paragraph of the Commentary on the Gospel
55 On the basis of this passage, Leloir, following the earlier work of
Schäfers, noted “l’imprécision des renseignements que donne Éphr sur
l’évangile tétramorphe” (Le Témoignage, 71-72).
If the final paragraph of the Commentary on the Gospel is an
interpolation, as I have argued, then this implies we should be
skeptical of this section as well in light of the parallels between the
two. The Pauline commentaries attributed to Ephrem survive only
in Armenian and have been very little studied, while it is known
that much spurious material survived under Ephrem’s name,
especially in Armenian
56 For example, the Armenian Commentary on Genesis attributed to
Ephrem apparently bears little relation to the Syriac Commentary on Genesis
that also names him as its author, and for this reason the Armenian is
generally regarded as spurious. See Edward G. Matthews, The Armenian
Commentary on Genesis Attributed to Ephrem the Syrian, CSCO 573, Scriptores
Armeniaci 24 (Louvain: Peeters, 1998); Edward G. Mathews, The
Armenian Commentaries on Exodus-Deuteronomy Attributed to Ephrem the Syrian,
CSCO 587, Scriptores Armeniaci 25 (Louvain: Peeters, 2001).
Finally, Lange has argued that in at least
one instance the commentary provides an interpretation that differs
from the “authentic Ephrem,” and he therefore advocates keeping
open the question of its authenticity pending further study
57 See Christian Lange, “Zum Taufverständnis im syrischen
Diatessaronkommentar,” in Syriaca. Zur Geschichte, Theologie, Liturgie und
Gegenwartslage der syrischen Kirchen. 2. Deutsches Syrologen-Symposium (Juli 2000,
Wittenberg), ed. M. Tamcke, Studien zur orientalischen Kirchengeschichte
17 (Münster: Lit, 2002), who also briefly summarizes his argument in
Lange, “Ephrem, His School, and the Yawnaya,” 165.
I
suggest, then, that we not view this passage as evidence of
Ephrem’s knowledge of evangelist traditions.
Excluding the final paragraph of the Commentary on the Gospel
and the short passage from the Pauline commentaries, there is no
clear evidence that Ephrem knew the otherwise common evangelist
traditions explaining the origins of the four gospels. Moreover, the
only specific passages we can be sure that he knew from the
separated gospels are the Matthean and Lukan genealogies and the
Johannine prologue. In one sense this is not too surprising since
these texts had long been the twin pillars for understanding the
nature of Christ, going back to Irenaeus who first stated that
Matthew told of Jesus’ “generation as a man” and John his
“generation from the Father.
58 Irenaeus, a.h. 3.11.8.
As noted above, Clement passed
on a version of this tradition as well, contrasting the Synoptic
genealogies with the opening of the fourth gospel. The fact that
Tatian’s edition excluded the genealogies would make have made
these passages from the fourfold gospel stand out prominently to
Ephrem. The genealogies might, then, have been viewed as a sort
of supplement to his usual gospel text. Moreover, the Johannine
prologue is perhaps the most unique passage in all four canonical
gospels, and was notably important in the ‘Arian’ controversy of
the fourth century, in which Ephrem took part
59 See Peter Bruns, “Arius Hellenizans? Ephraem der Syrer und die
neoarianischen Kontroversen seiner Zeit. Ein Beitrag zur Rezeption des
Nizänums im syrischen Sprachraum,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 101
(1990): 21-57; Sidney H. Griffith, “Setting Right the Church of Syria: Saint
Ephraem’s Hymns Against Heresies,” in The Limits of Ancient Christianity:
Essays on Late Antique Thought and Culture in Honor of R. A. Markus, ed.
William E. Klingshirn and Mark Vessey, (Ann Arbor: The University of
Michigan Press, 1999); Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to
Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004),
229-235. Ephrem mentions “the Arian” at CGos XII.9.
so it is to be
expected that this passage would particularly draw his attention. In
other words, even if Ephrem did not necessarily know the
Eusebian evangelist traditions, he seemingly shared with his Greek
and Latin contemporaries the conviction that the Synoptic
genealogies and the Johannine opening were unique and important
passages
60 For an exploration of how Ephrem interpreted the opening of
Tatian’s gospel, see my “Reading the Diatessaron with Ephrem: The
Word and the Light, the Voice and the Star,” Vigiliae Christianae,
forthcoming.
3. EPHREM AND “THE GREEK”
In light of the material considered thus far, it is clear that Ephrem
knew of the existence of the four gospels, knew that the opening of
the fourth gospel was written by the evangelist John, and knew the
Matthean and Lukan genealogies in some detail. These
observations leave little doubt that he worked with some version of
the separated gospels alongside his unified gospel text. We should
now consider whether there are any explicit references in his
corpus to distinct gospel versions aside from the sort of
unspecified references to the “gospel” that remain difficult to
identify. The only such passages are a half-dozen instances in
which he provides variant readings that he says derive from “the
Greek Gospel” or simply “the Greek.” One of these references
occurs in his Refutationes ad Hypatium and a further five show up in
the Commentary on the Gospel, both texts that are usually dated during
the final decade of Ephrem’s life that he spent in Edessa.
Since it has been traditionally assumed that Ephrem did not
know Greek, Burkitt and Arthur Vööbus suggested that Ephrem
refers in these passages to a Syriac translation of the fourfold
gospel which he calls “the Greek” to distinguish it from Tatian’s
version, which was more well known among Syriac speakers
61 Burkitt, Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe, II.190; Arthur Vööbus, Studies in
the History of the Gospel Text in Syriac, CSCO 128, Subsidia 3 (Louvain: L.
Durbecq, 1951), 38-39.
In
other words, Burkitt and Vööbus argued that by calling this version
the “Greek” Ephrem was referring not to its language of
composition, but to the form in which this gospel existed. Leloir
was more cautious, preferring instead to suppose that Ephrem had
access to a number of individual variant readings from the Greek
separated gospels
62 Leloir, Le Témoignage, 72-73. Later Leloir hypothesized that some
Greek-speaking Christians in Edessa could have passed along to Ephrem
these readings from their version of the fourfold gospel (Commentaire de
l’Évangile concordant ou Diatessaron, 29-30).
Lange, also assuming that these represent a
separated, Syriac translation, has most recently surveyed these
passages in an attempt to determine what version of gospel text lies
behind the citations, but he was unable to clearly identify the
passages with either the Vetus Syra or the Peshitta
63 Lange, “Ephrem, His School, and the Yawnaya,” 167-174.
Theodor Zahn, Tatian’s Diatessaron, Forschungen zur Geschichte des
neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altkirchlichen Literatur, Tl. 1
(Erlangen: Deichert, 1881), 62, ascribed the idiosyncrasies of these
passages to the lack of skill of the translator, concluding that they
represent “ein ziemlich ungeschickter Versuch, das grieschische Original
zu übersetzen”.
In what
follows I intend to consider each of these passages closely to
determine if they indicate usage of the fourfold, separated gospel,
as has often been supposed.
In the passage from the Refutationes ad Hypatium, the Syrian
opposes an interpretation of John 1:4 offered by the Manicheans.
He begins by saying that the passage “in the Gospel” (ܒܐܢܓܠܝܘܢ)
reads “the life is the light of a man” (ܕܐܢܫܐ ܕܗܢܘܢ ܚܝ̈ܐ ܐܝܬܝܗܘܢ ܢܘܗܪܐ).
.(Apparently the Manicheans draw from the singular “man”
the conclusion that the passage speaks of the “primal man” (ܩܕܡܝܐ ܐܢܫܐ)
who plays a role in Manichean cosmology. Against this
exegesis Ephrem brings the reading from “the Greek Gospel”
(ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ܝܘܢܝܐ), which says “the life is the light of men”
(ܚܝ̈ܐ ܐܝܬܝܗܘܢ ܢܘܗܪܐ ܕܒ̈ܢܝ ܐܢܫܐ ܕܗܢܘܢ)
64 C.W. Mitchell, S. Ephraim’s Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion, and
Bardaisan. Volume I: The Discourses Addressed to Hypatius, Text and Translation
Society (London: Williams and Norgate, 1912), 121-122 (text), xc
(translation).
As David Bundy and
Christian Lange have observed, the singular form ܐܢܫܐ is
ambiguous in that it could be a collective singular (“humanity”) or
a true singular (“a man”). This is the ambiguous reading that
apparently occurred in Ephrem’s “Gospel” and that lent itself to
Manichean exegesis. However, the plural rendering ܒ̈ܢܝ ܐܢܫܐ
derived from “the Greek gospel,” removes the ambiguity by
explaining the singular as a collective singular, ruling out any
reference to the primal man
65 D. Bundy, “Revising the Diatessaron Against the Manicheans:
Ephrem of Syria on John 1:4,” Aram 5 (1993): 65-74; Lange, “Ephrem,
His School, and the Yawnaya,” 167-169.
It is curious then that, in the only citation of John 1:4 in the
Commentary on the Gospel, the reading given is ܒ̈ܢܝ ܐܢܫܐ, which
corresponds to the reading from “the Greek Gospel” rather than
to that which occurs in Ephrem’s standard gospel text according to
the Refutationes ad Hypatium
66 CGos I.6 (Leloir 1963, 6). Leloir, L’Évangile d’Éphrem, 99, does not
list any further citations of John 1:4 in Ephrem’s corpus, so we do not
have any other citations with which to compare it.
If Ephrem composed his Commentary
on the Gospel after engaging in this bit of anti-Manichean polemic,
then he might have revised the reading himself when commenting
upon the passage in his gospel commentary in order to rule out the
heretical implication. At any rate, the reading in the Greek gospel
tradition is indeed τῶν ἀνθρώπων, and the Curetonian manuscript
of the Old Syriac agrees with Ephrem’s “Greek” version in the
̈reading ܒ̈ܢܝ ܐܢܫܐ, so his alternate version finds support in the
wider tradition of the separated gospels
67 See Kiraz, Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels, Volume 4: John, 4.
We should also observe that Ephrem refers to this additional
gospel text in a way that is parallel to the manner in which he refers
to his standard gospel text. He titled his gospel exposition the
Commentary on the Gospel (ܦܘܫܩܐ ܕܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ) and called the text
upon which he commented simply the “Gospel” (ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ).
However, when he refers to the alternate version in the Refutationes
ad Hypatium, he offers no further description of this text beyond
simply calling it the “Greek Gospel” (ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ܝܘܢܝܐ). In other
words, pace Burkitt and Vööbus, he does not distinguish these two
gospel versions on the basis of their form, but simply on the basis
of their language. If Ephrem had been referring to a fourfold
gospel, it seems likely that he would have needed to provide some
further description to signal to his readers that this was a reference
to a four-part gospel, in contrast to his singular, united gospel.
The remaining five references to “the Greek” all occur in
Ephrem’s Commentary on the Gospel and present a pattern in keeping
with the passage from the Refutationes ad Hypatium. In CGos V.2
Ephrem, while commenting upon the wedding feast at Cana, notes
in passing “in Greek he wrote, ‘he was reclining and the wine ran
short’” (ܒܝܘܢܝܐ ܟܬܒ ܕܣܡܝܟ ܗܘܐ ܘܚܣܪ ܚܡܪܐ)
68 CGos V.2 (Louis Leloir, Saint Éphrem, Commentaire de l’Évangile
concordant, texte syriaque (Manuscrit Chester Beatty 709), Folios Additionnels
(Leuven: Peeters, 1990), 38). Schäfers, Evangelienzitate, 38-40, regarded this
passage as a marginal note by a scribe that was later incorporated into the
text, but this is unduly skeptical.
When
commenting on this passage Theodor Zahn pointed out that
Ephrem’s version of “the Greek” represents a confusion of ἐκλίθη
(“he reclined”) with ἐκλήθη (“he was invited”), a textual variant
that does not appear in the Greek gospel tradition
69 Tatian’s Diatessaron, 62. So also Burkitt, Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe,
II.190.
Whether the
written text Ephrem refers to actually had this reading or whether
the confusion arose through oral translation from the Greek is
impossible to determine. What this citation seems to add to
Ephrem’s surrounding discussion is precisely the fact that Jesus
“was reclining,” though it is unclear how this point serves the
purpose of the paragraph which is to explain the Savior’s rebuke of
his mother’s request. Since this citation does not in any obvious
way serve Ephrem’s larger point, it is possible that he has included
it simply as a sort of curiosity for his readers. He was obviously
aware that his “gospel” text differed from the “Greek” in this
instance, and this difference alone could have warranted comment.
At CGos X.14 Ephrem once more turns to “the Greek.” He
cites his Syriac version of Matthew 11:25 as, “I give thanks to you,
Father, who is in heaven” (ܕܡܘܕܐ ܐܢܐ ܠܟ ܐܒܐ ܕܒܫܡܝܐ), and
then follows by noting, “the Greek says, ‘I give thanks to you, God,
Father, Lord of heaven and earth’ and ‘that you have hidden [it]
from the wise and revealed [it] to children’ (ܠܛ̈ܠܝܐ ܐܒܐ ܡܪܐ ܕܫܡܝܐ ܘܕܐܪܥܐ. ܘܕܟܣܝܬ ܡܢ ܚܟܝ̈ܡܐ ܘܓܠܝܬ ܡܘܕܐ ܐܢܐ ܠܟ ܐܠܗܐ).
70 CGos X.14 (Leloir 1963, 48). Schäfers, Evangelienzitate, 40,
conjectured that this reference to “the Greek” is an interpolation that
arose through a marginal note added by a reader, which was accidentally
incorporated into the text by a later scribe. Leloir, Le Témoignage, 145,
disagreed, noting that the citation occurs in both the Armenian and Syriac
recensions. Schäfers is unduly skeptical in this instance. 71 According to Leloir, L’Évangile d’Éphrem, 11,
The most obvious difference between the two passages
is that the Syriac reads “Father who is in heaven,” while “the
Greek” reads “God, Father, Lord of heaven and earth.” The initial
citation given, which derives from Ephrem’s standard gospel text,
reads like an amalgamation of Matthew 11:25 (ἐξομολογοῦμαί σοι,
πάτερ, κύριε τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς) and the Pater Noster of
Matthew 6:9 (Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς). Given that Ephrem’s
“Gospel” involved Tatian’s editing of preexisting material, it is
entirely possible that the prayer of Jesus recorded here was Tatian’s
own combination of these two passages
71 According to Leloir, L’Évangile d’Éphrem, 11, 24, 83, no other
citations of Matthew 6:9 or Luke 10:21 survive in Ephrem’s corpus, and
the only other citation of Matthew 11:25 occurs in a passage of
questionable authenticity.
On the other hand, the
reading Ephrem here gives as coming from “the Greek” largely
corresponds with the Greek version of the passage as given in
Matthew 11:25 and Luke 10:21 (κύριε τοῦ οὐρανοὐ καὶ τῆς γῆς),
although it has the unusual addition of “God.
72 Burkitt, Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe, II.190, might be right in seeing
the mention of “God” as a simple “piece of carelessness” due to Ephrem
citing from memory.
The next reference to “the Greek” is a citation of Matthew
28:18 and it occurs in a short section consisting of three sentences
that are absent from the Armenian recension. The fact that this
passage shows up only in the Syriac version calls into question its
authenticity, though we have at least to reckon with the possibility
that the Armenian translator omitted this passage rather than that it
was a later interpolation to the Syriac. After citing an expanded
version of John 16:15 (“All that my Father has is mine and what is
mine is my Father’s”), the Syriac continues beyond the Armenian
and cites as further proof an expanded version of Matthew 28:18
(“All authority that is in heaven and on earth has been given to me
by my Father”), before then quoting the same passage as it occurs
in “the Greek.
73 CGos XV.19 (Leloir 1963, 158).
In this instance the only difference between the
Syriac and “the Greek” is that, whereas the Syriac reads “in heaven
and on earth” (ܕܒܫܡܝܐ ܘܒܐܪܥܐ), ܕ” ,(the Greek” has “as in heaven,
so also on earth” (ܐܝܟ ܕܒܫܡܝܐ ܐܦ ܒܐܪܥܐ). .(It is unclear in this
instance what extra exegetical pay-off is gained from the “Greek”
text that cannot be had from the Syriac. Equally puzzling is the fact
that Ephrem’s original text, which stood in his Syriac harmony, is
closer to the proper Greek version of Matthew 28:18 than the text
which he says comes from “the Greek.” Ephrem’s “Greek” version
contains the phrase “as in heaven, so also on earth” which seems
more like a fairly close translation of Matthew 6:10c (ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ
καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς) rather than 28:18 (ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς), Similar
to the two previous passages from “the Greek,” Ephrem’s citation
here is an unusual rendering of the Greek text as it is available to us
today.
Furthermore, both of the versions of Matthew 28:18 cited
here, the Syriac and the Greek, have the unusual phrase “by my
Father” that does not occur in the Greek gospel tradition. It is
possible that the additional phrase “by my Father” is Ephrem’s
own loose citation, since immediately preceding his quotation of
Matthew 28:18 is a quotation of John 16:15 which speaks of the
Son receiving “all that the Father has.” Alternatively, it is also
possible that Tatian added this phrase to Matthew 28:18 when
compiling his harmony. The Peshitta inserts a phrase from John
20:21 (“As my Father sent me, so also I send you”) immediately
following Matthew 28:18, a reading that, as Burkitt pointed out,
was probably taken over from the Old Syriac version, which
happens to be lost in this section
74 Burkitt, Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe, I.172-173.
As with so many of the peculiar
Old Syriac readings, it is likely that this insertion derives ultimately
from the influence of Tatian’s gospel
75 On the influence of Tatian’s gospel upon the Vetus Syra, see
Vööbus, Studies in the History, 34-35; Petersen, Tatian’s Diatessaron, 130-133.
Further evidence to this
point is that the Arabic Diatessaron likewise places John 20:21
immediately following Matthew 28:18
76 TatAR LV. 4-5 (Marmardji, Diatessaron de Tatien, 528-529).
Viewed in this light, it is
plausible that the Johannine-sounding phrase “by my Father”
which Ephrem reads in Matthew 28:18 was also due to Tatian’s
mixing of his Matthean and Johannine sources. Notably, the Syriac
translation of Eusebius’ Theophania, which provides the only other
early citation of this verse in Syriac, likewise includes the phrase
“by my Father,” supporting the reading in Ephrem’s text
77 Eusebius, Theophania 4.8. The passage is cited in Ignatius Ortix de
Urbina, Vetus Evangelium Syrorum et Exinde Excerptum Diatessaron Tatiani,
Biblia Polyglotta Matritensia, Series VI (Madrid: Consejo Superior de
Investigaciones Cientificas, 1967), 201. Urbina, who collated gospel
citations from early Syriac texts, provides one other citation of Matthew
28:18, and it too includes the phrase “by my Father,” though it occurs in a
work of questionable authenticity. Leloir, L’Évangile d’Éphrem, 59, noted
the same ps-Ephremic passage.
If it is
plausible to regard this phrase as Tatian’s own addition, then it is
striking that it shows up both in Ephrem’s Syriac gospel text as
well as in his alternate “Greek” gospel.
The final two reference to “the Greek” occur in sections of the
commentary for which the folios of Chester Beatty 709 are missing,
and for which therefore only the Armenian recension is available.
At CGos II.17 Ephrem is explaining the meaning of Simeon’s
prediction to Mary that “You will remove the sword” (Amovebis
gladium), a reading of Luke 2:35a that makes Mary the subject of the
action, rather than the object as is read in the Greek gospel
tradition (σοῦ αὐτῆς τὴν ψυχὴν διελεύσεται ῥομφαία)
78 On the unusual reading of Luke 2:35 given by Ephrem, see Leloir,
Le Témoignage, 92-93; Robert Murray, “The Lance Which Re-Opened
Paradise, a Mysterious Reading in the Early Syriac Fathers,” Orientalia
Christiana Periodica 39 (1973): 224-234, 491. The passage is cited again in
the same peculiar form at CGos XXI.27 where Ephrem is commenting
upon the appearance to “Mary” at the empty tomb. I translate here and in
the passage that follows from Leloir’s Latin translation of the Armenian.
Ephrem
provides two alternate interpretations of the verse. He first
connects Mary’s removal of the sword with the sword that guarded
paradise after Eve’s failure, relying on the common typological link
between Eve and Mary. His second interpretation is that the verse
refers to Mary’s “denial” (negationem). Assuming that Mary, the
mother of Jesus, is the same Mary present at the empty tomb in
John 20:15, Ephrem regards this “denial” as her doubting when she
encountered the risen Christ, when she thought that he was the
gardener
79 The exegetical move of linking Simeon’s prediction to Mary, the
mother of Jesus, with the Mary who doubted at the tomb (cf. John 20:15)
demonstrates a conflation of the different “Mary’s” in the Jesus tradition,
an idea that Ephrem shares with some other early Syriac sources. Cf.
Robert Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom: A Study in Early Syriac
Tradition, Rev. ed. (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 329-335; Sebastian Brock,
“Mary and the Gardiner: An East Syrian Dialogue Soghitha for the
Resurrection,” Parole de l’Orient 11 (1983): 225-26. For similar passages in
the commentary, see CGos V.5; XXI.27.
It is in the midst of this second interpretation that the
commentary introduces Luke 2:35b with the words, “the Greek
says quite clearly, ‘the thoughts from many hearts will be revealed,’
that is, the thoughts of those who doubted” (
Graecum clare quidem
dicit: Revelabuntur ex multis cordibus cogitationes (nimirum) eorum qui
dubitaverunt
)
80 CGos II.17 (Leloir, Commentaire de l’Évangile concordant, version
arménienne, 24).
In this instance, Ephrem does not contrast the
reading of “the Greek” with that which is given in his primary
gospel text, so it is unclear what exegetical value he thought he
could derive from the Greek version that could not be had simply
from the Syriac. Nevertheless, “the Greek” version of this passage
as reported by Ephrem does correspond well with the Greek text
as it is known to us today (ἀποκαλυφθῶσιν ἐκ πολλῶν καρδιῶν
διαλογισμοί)
81 Leloir, L’évangile d’Éphrem, 74, does not provide any further
citations of Luke 2:35b in Ephrem’s corpus.
However, there have been doubts as to the authenticity of this
passage. Harris, Schäfers, Leloir, and Lange have noted that
Isho‘dad of Merv later cites this very passage from Ephrem’s
commentary, but notably omits the line that introduces the reading
from “the Greek.
82 J. Rendel Harris, Fragments of the Commentary of Ephrem Syrus Upon the
Diatessaron (London: C.J. Clay and Sons, 1895), 34; Schäfers,
Evangelienzitate, 32-38; Leloir, Le Témoignage, 94; Lange, “Ephrem, His
School, and the Yawnaya,” 172-173. Harris gives the passage with a
translation. See also the passage in the context of Isho’dad’s commentary
in Margaret Dunlop Gibson, The Commentaries of Isho’dad of Merv, Bishop of
Hadatha (c. 850 A.D.) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011),
vol. 1, p.159 (translation); vol. 3, p. 21 (text).
On this basis they concluded that the citation
of “the Greek” must be a later interpolation. While this
interpretation of the evidence cannot be ruled out, it seems to me
that the passage in Isho‘dad reads more like a paraphrase of
Ephrem’s commentary rather than an exact citation. Isho‘dad has
clearly shortened the passage in the latter half of his quotation,
since the version as it stands in the commentary is longer and more
detailed. Isho‘dad includes no reference to the “gardener” of John
20:15, as does Ephrem’s original passage, and whereas Isho‘dad
merely mentions the “miracles” of the Savior, the commentary
explicitly names these marvels: the conception and birth. Given
that Isho‘dad apparently compressed the passage when he cited it,
it is possible that he simply chose to leave out Ephrem’s reference
to “the Greek” which he probably found puzzling and ill-suited to
his purpose. For this reason, I suggest we regard the reference “the
Greek” here as Ephremic.
The final citation of “the Greek” in CGos also comes from a
passage extant only in the Armenian. At CGos XIX.17 Ephrem is
concerned to explain the meaning of Jesus’ prayer in John 17:5,
which he initially cites as “Give me glory in your presence from
that which you gave me before the world had been made” (
Da mihi
gloriam apud te ex illa, quam dedisti mihi, antequam mundus factus esset
). In
the following exegesis, the Syrian wants to make clear that the
“glory” spoken of is understood as the glory which the Son
previously possessed with the Father when the two were creating.
Now that the Son is engaged in bringing to pass a new creation,
Ephrem argues, he prays to receive this same glory from the
Father. After pressing this point for a paragraph or so, he then
recapitulates his argument, asserting that the “Give me” (
Da mihi
)
refers to that glory which “he had before creatures, with the Father,
and in the Father’s presence.” As proof for this interpretation he
next asserts, “for the reading of the Greek also quite clearly says,
‘Glorify me with that glory which I myself possessed in your
presence, before the world was’” (
quoniam et lectio (Graeci) habet et
aperte quidem dicit: Glorifica me, ait, gloria illa quam possidebam ego coram
te, antequam esset mundus
)
83 CGos XIX.17 (Leloir, Commentaire de l’Évangile concordant, version
arménienne, 199-200). Leloir notes that manuscript B reads in
Graeco lectio
,
while manuscript A has
lectio habet et
. He has inserted
Graeci
in brackets
into his version of the text, presumably because he assumed
Greacus
has
dropped out from the text in A.
Ephrem’s citation of “the Greek” in this
instance is a fairly close rendering of the Greek text as it is known
to us today (δόξασόν με σύ, πάτερ, παρὰ σεαυτῷ τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον
πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί). Unlike in the previous passage,
he here cites both his gospel text as well as that of “the Greek,” so
we are in a position to compare them. The primary difference
seems to be that the first citation speaks of the glory given (
quam
dedisti mihi
) to the Son by the Father before the world, whereas “the
Greek” describes the Son as actually possessing this glory before the
world (
quam possidebam ego
). Perhaps the latter rendering seemed to
Ephrem to make the point “more clearly” that the Son actually had
this glory previously and was therefore not simply receiving it for
the first time.
What then are we to make of these passages? To begin with, as
I have already suggested, it is unduly skeptical to reject them all as
later scribal interpolations, as Schäfers has done
84 Though, to be fair, Schäfers was working only with the Armenian
version since the Syriac had not yet been discovered.
The fact that
Ephrem engages in this sort of reading in the Refutationes ad
Hypatium, in a passage whose authenticity no one disputes, implies
that the references in the Commentary on the Gospel should be given
the benefit of the doubt unless further arguments can be adduced
against their authenticity. Furthermore, I suggest it is most likely
that in these passages Ephrem really does refer to a Greek version,
rather than simply a Syriac tetraevangelium, as Burkitt, Vööbus,
and Lange assumed, since the study of Possekel has laid to rest the
idea that Ephrem had no access to Greek sources. Ephrem’s
labeling of this source as “the Greek” makes much more sense as a
straightforward reference to a text written in Greek, rather than
awkwardly supposing that by “Greek” he actually means “Syriac in
a separated form.” If then it is an actual Greek version to which
Ephrem refers, we should not be greatly surprised that the citations
from “the Greek” correspond with neither the Vetus Syra nor the
Peshitta.
However, we still have to contend with the fact that several of
the “Greek” passages cited by Ephrem include readings that are
nowhere to be found in the Greek gospel tradition, and at least one
of these readings, the “by my Father” in Matthew 28:18, occurs
both in his Syriac text as well as in the “Greek” version to which he
refers. Moreover, it is striking that he provides no mention
whatsoever of a difference in form between the “Gospel” and “the
Greek Gospel.” Rather, his language denotes a difference of
language, while conversely implying a similarity in the form in
which these two gospels existed. In light of these observations I
suggest we consider the possibility that in these passages Ephrem
refers to a Greek version of Tatian’s gospel to which he had access
in Edessa. The original language of Tatian’s gospel has been a
subject of much debate, and I do not intend to enter into it here.
However, there is good reason to think that Tatian’s work did exist
in Greek, as well as in Syriac. The only Greek witness to have
survived is the bit of parchment from Dura Europos dated to
sometime before the destruction of the city by the Persians in 256-
257. Although David Parker, D.G.K. Taylor, and Mark Goodacre
have attempted to show that this fragment does not derive from
Tatian’s gospel, Jan Joosten has recently provided a convincing
counter-argument
85 D.C. Parker, D.G.K Taylor, and M.S. Goodacre, “The Dura-
Europos Gospel Harmony,” in Studies in the Early Text of the Gospels and
Acts, ed. D.G.K. Taylor (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999), 192-
228; Jan Joosten, “The Dura Parchment and the Diatessaron,” Vigiliae
Christianae 57 (2003): 159-175. The fragment was originally published in
Carl H. Kraeling, A Greek Fragment of Tatian’s Diatessaron From Dura,
Studies and Documents 3 (London: Christophers, 1935). Petersen
provides an overview of the evidence in Tatian’s Diatessaron, 196-203. Most
recently the issue has been considered in Ulrich Mell, Christliche Hauskirche
und Neues Testament. Die Ikonologie des Baptisteriums von Dura Europos und das
Diatessaron Tatians, Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus 77
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010), 189-204. Mell writes, “Um
die These, dass es sich bei dem Dura-Fragment um den Text einer
Evangelienharmonie handelt, und zwar ausgerechnet derjenigen von
Tatian, entscheidend zu verifizieren, ist das Dura-Fragment in seinem
Umfang zu klein” (p.204). Mell seems unaware of Joosten’s work, which,
through a comparison of the text with other Tatianic witnesses, succeeds
in showing that the Dura fragment is related to Tatian’s gospel. On the
Dura fragment, see also Matthew R. Crawford, “The Diatessaron,
Canonical or Non-canonical? Rereading the Dura Fragment,” New
Testament Studies 61 (2015): forthcoming.
If Tatian’s work survived in a Greek version in
Dura-Europos as late as the mid-third century, then the possibility
must at least be considered that a copy was also housed in the
library at Edessa a century or so later during Ephrem’s residence
there
86 Vööbus, Studies in the History, 40, noted that a letter originally
written in Syriac but now preserved only in Armenian, was sent by
Aithallah, presumably bishop of Edessa, to Persian Christians. Twice in
this letter the bishop says he is quoting from the Gospel of John (once
“John the evangelist” and once just “John”), leading Vööbus to conclude
that he had quoted from the separated gospels. See the two passages at
Joannes Thorossian, Aithallae Episcopi Edesseni Epistola Ad Christianos in
Persarum Regione De Fide (Venice: Lazari, 1942), 46, 53. Since Aithallah’s
tenure as bishop began in 324/5 and ended with his death in 345, Vööbus
used the letter as proof that the separated gospels were in use prior to
Ephrem’s decade in Edessa. However, it has recently been shown that this
letter dates to the early fifth century, rather than to the mid-fourth
century. As a result, it does not tell us anything about what form of gospel
text was in use in Edessa prior to Ephrem. On the date of the letter, see
David D. Bundy, “The Letter of Aithallah (CPG 3340): Theology,
Purpose, Date,” in III Symposium Syriacum 1980, ed. René Lavenant,
(Rome: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1983), who points out
that the letter cites the third article of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan
Creed of 381. See also David Bundy, “The Creed of Aithallah: A Study in
the History of the Early Syriac Symbol,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses
63 (1987): 157-163.
The fact that these readings from “the Greek” occur only
during the final ten years of Ephrem’s life imply that this text was
not available to him in Nisibis but was only found by him once he
had relocated to Edessa. If Ephrem found in Edessa a Greek copy
of the gospel text familiar to him in Syriac, he or perhaps some
other bilingual Christian could easily have provided variant
readings from the Greek to supplement his exposition of the Syriac
text.
Of course, the evidence is too slim to allow us to conclude
with certainty that Ephrem’s “Greek” version is a Greek
Diatessaron, but nothing rules out the possibility and there is at
least some slim evidence in its favor. This explanation of these
references is, therefore, at least as plausible as the notion that
Ephrem is referring to Greek, separated gospels, even if final
certitude is beyond our reach. If the idea of him using a Greek
Diatessaron initially strikes us as odd, this reaction might simply
reflect the fact that history is written by the victors—in this case
the fourfold, separated gospel—, and what seems strange to us
now might have been commonplace in fourth-century Edessa. We
know that a Greek version of Tatian’s work once existed. That
Ephrem’s allusive references to the “Greek” might be to such a
text is at least as plausible an explanation as any other.
Finally, we should observe the way in which Ephrem uses
these cross-references. Vööbus argued that since Ephrem on one
occasion (CGos XIX.17) calls this variant reading a lectio (the Syriac
in this section is lost), implying authoritative scriptural status, the
Syrian regarded this alternate text as the normative one, rather than
the “Diatessaron” upon which he commented
87 Vööbus, Studies in the History, 38-39.
In the previous
century Harnack made a similar argument, though he held that
Ephrem knew Greek and was making his own translation from the
Greek separated gospels, while Vööbus regarded the text as a pre-
Peshitta Syriac translation of the separated gospels
88 “Tatian’s Diatessaron und Marcion’s Commentar zum Evangelium
bei Ephraem Syrus,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 4 (1881): 495.
The
conclusion that lectio here implies a more authoritative text is
probably assuming too much on the basis of a single word. In my
reading of these five passages, it seems that Ephrem introduces the
variant readings simply as further evidence for the particular
interpretation he wishes to pursue, rather than as the definitive and
ultimately authoritative textual form. His practice is in keeping with
the way many contemporary Greek authors were content to rely
simultaneously on readings of the Septuagint alongside the Hebrew
Old Testament, without choosing one text over another. It is
notable that in the final two passages I considered above, Ephrem
says “the Greek” “speaks clearly,” suggesting that he thought the
Greek version was a more lucid rendering that better served his
purpose. There is no hint in his exposition of any opposition
between the Syriac “Gospel” and “the Greek Gospel,” and he
seems happy to use either to illuminate the meaning of a given
passage.
4. GOSPEL VERSIONS IN EPHREM’S CORPUS
In light of the above three lines of inquiry, there is no doubt that
Ephrem had access to gospel versions beyond the Syriac gospel
upon which he authored a commentary. Most significant is the
conclusion that he knew some form of the fourfold gospel, which,
in terms of its form, would have contrasted sharply with Tatian’s
gospel. Although, as I have argued elsewhere
89 Crawford, “Diatessaron, A Misnomer?”
Tatian’s version
was quite likely anonymous and intended as a way of erasing the
memory of the evangelist traditions, it is clear that Ephrem knew
the names of the four canonical evangelists, and had worked with
these texts at least with respect to the Johannine prologue and the
Matthean and Lukan genealogies. It is likely that this knowledge is
due to his acquaintance with an early Syriac translation of the
tetraevangelium. The sole surviving witnesses of the Vetus Syra
date from the period after Ephrem’s death, but these may represent
a much older translation attempt. In addition, Ephrem also made
use of a Greek version of the gospel, which may have been a Greek
edition of Tatian’s work.
This picture of Ephrem is broadly in keeping with what we can
reconstruct of his context. Aphrahat, who wrote a few decades
earlier than Ephrem and who lived further East under Persian rule,
never mentions evangelist traditions nor does he name Tatian or
the Diatessaron. Ephrem, living in Nisibis and eventually in
Edessa, appears to be more in touch with the Greek-speaking
world further west. I have already noted Possekel’s demonstration
of his usage of Greek philosophical contexts, and we should also
note his engagement with the Arian controversy of the fourth
century. Given this greater contact with the Greek world, it would
be surprising if Ephrem did not know of the gospel in its fourfold
form. In fact, he clearly did, in keeping with his knowledge of other
Greek sources.
Nevertheless, we should not overlook the significance of the
rather obvious fact that when he came to author a commentary, he
did so not upon Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, but upon Tatian’s
gospel in its Syriac form. His authoring of the commentary
suggests that for both he and his community this text held some
kind of authoritative status. Defining the nature of this authority
more precisely is, however, more difficult. The most likely
explanation is that this Syriac gospel was the widely accepted
liturgical gospel for Ephrem and many other Syriac-speaking
Christians, as reported also by Theodoret a century later, who
noted its usage in 200 of the 800 churches in his diocese. As the
gospel regularly used liturgically, it would have seemed natural for
Ephrem to have written an exposition of it, in a manner parallel to
the way that Greek and Latin authors explained the meaning of the
fourfold gospel used liturgically in their churches.
Yet, even if Tatian’s gospel served as his primary gospel
version, Ephrem apparently felt free to supplement it with
additional material from elsewhere, such as the alternate readings
of the “Greek gospel,” and the genealogies of Jesus which were
absent from his liturgical text. He also treats as authentic certain
traditions about Mary, Zechariah, Elizabeth, and John the Baptist
which were likely drawn from some text like the Protoevangelium of
James
90 On apocryphal gospel traditions in the Syriac tradition, see Agnes
Smith Lewis, Apocrypha Syriaca: The Protevangelium Jacobi and Transitus
Mariae, With Texts From the Septuagint, the Corân, the Peshitta, and From a
Syriac Hymn in a Syro-Arabic Palimpsest of the Fifth and Other Centuries, Studia
Sinaitica 11 (London: C.J. Clay and Sons, 1902); Cornelia B. Horn, “Syriac
and Arabic Perspectives on Structural and Motif Parallels Regarding Jesus’
Childhood in Christian Apocrypha and Early Islamic Literature: The
‘Book of Mary,’ the Arabic Apocryphal Gospel of John and the Qu’rān,”
Apocrypha 19 (2008): 267-291; Charles Naffah, “Les ‘histoires’ syriaques de
la Vierge: traditions apocryphes anciennes et récentes,” Apocrypha 20
(2009): 137-188.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ayres, Lewis. Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century
Trinitarian Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Baarda, Tjitze. The Gospel Quotations of Aphrahat, the Persian Sage:
Aphrahat’s Text of the Fourth Gospel. Amsterdam: Vrije
Universiteit Amsterdam, 1975.
________. “‘The Flying Jesus’: Luke 4:29-30 in the Syriac
Diatessaron,” Vigiliae Christianae 40 (1986): 313-341.
Beck, Edmund. Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Fide. CSCO
154, Scriptores Syri 73. Louvain: L. Durbecq, 1955.
________.Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen contra Haereses.
CSCO 169, Scriptores Syri 76. Louvain: L. Durbecq, 1957.
________. Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Nativitate
(Epiphania).CSCO 186, Scriptores Syri 82. Louvain: Secrétariat
du CorpusSCO, 1959.
________. Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermones de Fide. CSCO
212, Scriptores Syri 88. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO,
1961.
________. Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Virginitate.
CSCO 223, Scriptores Syri 94. Louvain: Secrétariat du
CorpusSCO, 1962.
________. Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Fide. CSCO 155,
Scriptores Syri 74. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1967.
________. “Der syrische Diatessaronkommentar zu Jo. 1, 1-5,”
Oriens Christianus 67 (1983): 1-31.
Brock, Sebastian. “Mary and the Gardiner: An East Syrian
Dialogue Soghitha for the Resurrection,” Parole de l’Orient 11
(1983): 225-26.
________.The Luminous Eye: The Spiritual World Vision of Saint
Ephrem the Syrian. Cistercian Studies 124. Kalamazoo, MI:
Cistercian Publications, 1992.
________. “Eusebius and Syriac Christianity.” In Eusebius,
Christianity, and Judaism, ed. Harold W. Attridge and Gohei
Hata, Studia Post-Biblica 42. Leiden: Brill, 1992.
________. “The Use of the Syriac Fathers for New Testament
Textual Criticism.” In The Text of the New Testament in
Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, ed. Bart D.
Ehrman, and Michael W. Holmes, 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Bruns, Peter. “Arius Hellenizans? Ephraem der Syrer und die
neoarianischen Kontroversen seiner Zeit. Ein Beitrag zur
Rezeption des Nizänums im syrischen Sprachraum,”Zeitschrift
für Kirchengeschichte 101 (1990): 21-57.
Bundy, David. “The Letter of Aithallah (CPG 3340): Theology,
Purpose, Date.” In III Symposium Syriacum 1980, ed. René
Lavenant. Rome: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium,
1983.
________. “Revising the Diatessaron Against the Manicheans:
Ephrem of Syria on John 1:4,” Aram 5 (1993): 65-74.
________. “The Creed of Aithallah: A Study in the History of the
Early Syriac Symbol,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 63
(1987): 157-163.
Burkitt, F.C. S. Ephraim’s Quotations From the Gospel. Texts and
Studies 7.2. Cambridge: The University Press, 1901.
________. Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe. 2 vols. Cambridge: The
University Press, 1904.
Crawford, Matthew R. “Diatessaron, A Misnomer? The Evidence
of Ephrem’s Commentary,” Early Christianity4 (2013): 362-85.
________. “Reading the Diatessaron with Ephrem: The Word and
the Light, the Voice and the Star,” Vigiliae Christianae, forthcoming.
S. Ephræm Syri commentarii in epistolas D. Pauli(Venice: Typographia
Sancti Lazari, 1893).
Gibson, Margaret Dunlop. The Commentaries of Isho’dad of Merv,
Bishop of Hadatha (c. 850 A.D.). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2011.
Graffin, F. Patrologia Orientalis 41. Turnhout: Brepols, 1982.
Griffith, Sidney H. “Setting Right the Church of Syria: Saint
Ephraem’s Hymns Against Heresies.” In The Limits of Ancient
Christianity: Essays on Late Antique Thought and Culture in Honor of
R. A. Markus, ed. William E. Klingshirn and Mark Vessey. Ann
Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1999.
Harnack, Adolf. “Tatian’s Diatessaron und Marcion’s Commentar
zum Evangelium bei Ephraem Syrus,” Zeitschrift für
Kirchengeschichte 4 (1881): 471-505.
Harris, J. Rendel. Fragments of the Commentary of Ephrem Syrus Upon the
Diatessaron. London: C.J. Clay and Sons, 1895.
Horn, Cornelia B. “Syriac and Arabic Perspectives on Structural
and Motif Parallels Regarding Jesus’ Childhood in Christian
Apocrypha and Early Islamic Literature: The ‘Book of Mary,’
the Arabic Apocryphal Gospel of John and the Qu’rān,”
Apocrypha 19 (2008): 267-291.
Joosten, Jan. “The Dura Parchment and the Diatessaron,” Vigiliae
Christianae 57 (2003): 159-175.
Kiraz, George Anton. Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels. 4 vols.
Brill: Leiden, 1996.
Kraeling, Carl H. A Greek Fragment of Tatian’s Diatessaron From Dura.
Studies and Documents 3. London: Christophers, 1935.
Lange, Christian. “Zum Taufverständnis im syrischen
Diatessaronkommentar.” In Syriaca. Zur Geschichte, Theologie,
Liturgie und Gegenwartslage der syrischen Kirchen. 2. Deutsches
Syrologen-Symposium (Juli 2000, Wittenberg), ed. M. Tamcke.
Studien zur orientalischen Kirchengeschichte 17. Münster: Lit,
2002.
________. The Portrayal of Christ in the Syriac Commentary on the
Diatessaron, CSCO 616, Subsidia 118. Louvain: Peeters, 2005.
________. “Ephrem, His School, and the Yawnaya: Some
Remarks on the Early Syriac Versions of the New Testament.”
In The Peshitta: Its Use in Literature and Liturgy: Papers Read At the
Third Peshitta Symposium, ed. Robert Bas ter Haar Romeny,
Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Leiden 15. Leiden: Brill,
2006.
________. Ephraem der Syrer. Kommentar zum Diatessaron. 2 vols.
Fontes Christiani 54/1-2. Turnhout: Brepols, 2008.
Leloir, Louis. Saint Éphrem. Commentaire de l’Évangile concordant, version
arménienne. CSCO 145, Scriptores Armeniaci 2. Louvain: L.
Durbecq, 1954.
________. L’Évangile d’Éphrem d’après les oeuvres éditées: Recueil des
textes. CSCO 180, Subsidia 12. Louvain: Secrétariat du
CorpusSCO, 1958.
________. Le témoignage d’Éphrem sur le Diatessaron. CSCO 227,
Subsidia 19. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1962.
________. Saint Éphrem, Commentaire de l’Évangile concordant, texte
syriaque (Manuscrit Chester Beatty 709). Chester Beatty
Monographs 8. Dublin: Hodges Figgis & Co., 1963.
________. Éphrem de Nisibe: Commentaire de l’Évangile concordant ou
Diatessaron. Sources Chrétiennes 121. Paris: Éditions du Cerf,
1966.
Lewis, Agnes Smith. Apocrypha Syriaca: The Protevangelium Jacobi and
Transitus Mariae, with Texts from the Septuagint, the Corân, the
Peshitta, and from a Syriac Hymn in a Syro-Arabic Palimpsest of the
Fifth and Other Centuries. Studia Sinaitica 11. London: C.J. Clay
and Sons, 1902.
Marmardji, A. S. Diatessaron de Tatien. Beirut: Imprimerie catholique,
1935.
Matthews, Edward G. The Armenian Commentary on Genesis Attributed
to Ephrem the Syrian. CSCO 573, Scriptores Armeniaci 24.
Louvain: Peeters, 1998.
________. The Armenian Commentaries on Exodus-Deuteronomy
Attributed to Ephrem the Syrian. CSCO 587, Scriptores Armeniaci
25. Louvain: Peeters Publishers, 2001.
McCarthy, Carmel. Saint Ephrem’s Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron:
An English Translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709. Journal of
Semitic Studies Supplement 2. Oxford: Published by Oxford
University Press on behalf of the University of Manchester,
1993.
Mell, Ulrich. Christliche Hauskirche und Neues Testament. Die Ikonologie
des Baptisteriums von Dura Europos und das Diatessaron Tatians.
Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus 77. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010.
Mitchell, C.W. S. Ephraim’s Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion, and
Bardaisan. Volume I: The Discourses Addressed to Hypatius. Text and
Translation Society. London: Williams and Norgate, 1912.
Murray, Robert. “The Lance Which Re-Opened Paradise, a
Mysterious Reading in the Early Syriac Fathers,” Orientalia
Christiana Periodica 39 (1973): 224-234, 491.
________. Symbols of Church and Kingdom: A Study in Early Syriac
Tradition. Rev. ed. London: T&T Clark, 2006.
McVey, Kathleen E. Ephrem the Syrian: Hymns. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist
Press, 1989.
Naffah, Charles. “'Les ‘histoires’ syriaques de la Vierge: traditions
apocryphes anciennes et récentes,” Apocrypha 20 (2009): 137-
188.
Parker, D.C., D.G.K Taylor, and M.S. Goodacre. “The Dura-
Europos Gospel Harmony.” In Studies in the Early Text of the
Gospels and Acts, ed. D.G.K. Taylor. Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature, 1999.
Pastorelli, David. “The Genealogies of Jesus in Tatian’s
Diatessaron: The Question of their Absence or Presence.” In
Infancy Gospels: Stories and Identities, ed. Claire Clivaz, Andreas
Dettwiler, Luc Devillers, and Enrico Norelli. WUNT 281.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.
Petersen, William L. Tatian’s Diatessaron: Its Creation, Dissemination,
Significance, and History in Scholarship. Supplements to Vigiliae
Christianae 25. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994.
Possekel, Ute. Evidence of Greek Philosophical Concepts in the Writings of
Ephrem the Syrian. CSCO 580, Subsidia 102. Louvain: Peeters,
1999.
Reinink, Gerrit J. “Neue Fragmente zum Diatessaronkommentar
des Ephraemschülers Aba,” Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 11
(1980): 117-133.
Schäfers, J. Evangelienzitate in Ephraems des Syrers Kommentar zu den
paulinischen Schriften. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1917.
Thorossian, Joannes. Aithallae Episcopi Edesseni Epistola Ad
Christianos in Persarum Regione De Fide. Venice: Lazari, 1942.
Tonneau, R.-M. Sancti Ephraem Syri in Genesim et in Exodum
Commentarii. CSCO 152, Scriptores Syri 71. Louvain: L.
Durbecq, 1955.
Urbina, Ignatius Ortix de. Vetus Evangelium Syrorum et Exinde
Excerptum Diatessaron Tatiani. Biblia Polyglotta Matritensia,
Series VI. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones
Cientificas, 1967.
Vööbus, Arthur. Studies in the History of the Gospel Text in Syriac.
CSCO 128, Subsidia 3. Louvain: L. Durbecq, 1951.
Walters, J. Edward. “The Philoxenian Gospels as Reconstructed
from the Writings of Philoxenus of Mabbug,” Hugoye: Journal of
Syriac Studies 13 (2010): 177-249.
Watson, Francis. Gospel Writing: A Canonical Perspective. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013.
Williams, Peter J. “The Syriac Versions of the New Testament.” In
The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on
the Status Quaestionis, ed. Bart D. Ehrman, and Michael W.
Holmes. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Wright, William and Norman McLean. The Ecclesiastical History of
Eusebius in Syriac. Cambridge: University Press, 1898.
Zahn, Theodor. Tatian’s Diatessaron, Forschungen zur Geschichte
des neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altkirchlichen
Literatur, Tl. 1 Erlangen: Deichert, 1881.