Caught in a Compromising Position: The Biblical Exegesis and Characterization of Biblical Protagonists in the Syriac Dialogue Hymns
Kristi
Upson-saia
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
George A. Kiraz
James E. Walters
TEI XML encoding by
html2TEI.xsl
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
2006
Vol. 9, No. 2
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/hv9n2upsonsaia
Kristi Upson-Saia
Caught in a Compromising Position: The Biblical Exegesis and Characterization of Biblical Protagonists in the Syriac Dialogue Hymns
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/pdf/vol9/HV9N2UpsonSaia.pdf
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute,
vol 9
issue 2
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.
Syriac Studies
Dialogue Poems
Sugitho
File created by XSLT transformation of original HTML encoded article.
Syriac Dialogue hymns have been an
important part of East- and West-Syriac liturgy since at least
the middle of the fifth century CE. The hymns perform a
distinctive method of biblical
interpretation—“freeze-frame”
exegesis—that expands biblical narratives in order to
garner scriptural support for contemporary Christological
positions. While providing useful theological training,
however, the hymns convey several compromised portrayals of
biblical protagonists, which are striking when compared with
Greek and Latin treatments of the same figures.
[1] Much of
the recent scholarship on ancient biblical interpretation has
focused on the variety of figurative exegetical methods. Such
projects have endeavored to problematize the traditional
polarization between Antiochene typology and Alexandrian
allegory, and rather to shift scholars’ focus to
educational practices that formed both readers and reading
methods, as well as the social, political, and religious
functions of various exegetical practices.
For example, see F. Young, Biblical Exegesis
and the Formation of Christian Culture (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 2002); D. Dawson, Allegorical Readers and
Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1992).
In the quest to
rethink the figurative exegesis of Latin and Greek
Christianity, scholars have not paid enough attention to the
exegetical approaches of Syriac Christians. The most obvious
reason for this disregard is language; until recently, much of
the Syriac Christian corpus has remained untranslated,
hindering scholars’ access to and analysis of the
material. A closer examination of exegetical methods from this
tradition, however, further complexifies the categories of
biblical interpretation in late antiquity and provides a
fruitful avenue for further research.
[2] In this
paper, I will look at a distinctive form of interpretation
found in the Syriac Dialogue hymns. These hymns, which were
incorporated into Syriac liturgy from the early fourth century
to the present day, utilized a method of exegesis that expanded
biblical narratives, filling in gaps when the biblical stories
were imprecise or ambiguous, in order to limit alternative
“unorthodox” interpretations. The authors of Syriac
Dialogue hymns fused an exegetical technique akin to Jewish
narrative aggadah with a Mesopotamian dialogue genre
in order to devise a hymn form that could entertain as well as
instruct Syriac congregations on a number of contemporary
theological issues. In what follows, I will describe the method
of exegesis employed by Syriac Dialogue authors, the pedagogic
function of these hymns, and their unusual treatment of certain
biblical protagonists.
Fusion of Mesopotamian Precedence Dispute &
Biblical Narratives
[3] There
are over forty extant Dialogue hymns surviving in at least one
Syriac church (the Syrian Orthodox, the Maronite, and/or the
Church of the East).
For a catalogue of the Syriac Dialogue hymns, see
S. Brock, “Syriac Dialogue Poems: Marginalia to a Recent
Edition,” Le Muséon 97 (1984):
29–58. Although the much-anticipated American collection
of the Dialogue hymns has been delayed, individual
hymns—in Syriac and English translations—can be
located in the following publications. Sebastian Brock has
published fourteen individual Dialogue hymns in a Syriac
collection, S. Brock, Sughyotho
Mgabbyotho
(Holland: Syrian Orthodox Archdiocese of Central Europe, 1982);
two Dialogue hymns in Syriac with English translations can be
found in S. Brock, “The Dispute between the Cherub and
the Thief,” Hugoye 5.2 (July 2002): 169–93
and S. Brock, “The Sinful Woman and Satan: Two Syriac
Dialogue Poems,” Oriens Christianus 72 (1988):
21–62; English translations of the four hymns involving
Mary have been published in R. Beshara, Mary: Ship of
Treasures (Lebanon: Diocese of Saint Maron, 1988),
65–67, 83–93 and in S. Brock, Bride of Light:
Hymns on Mary from the Syriac Churches (Kottayam: SEERI,
1994), 111–134; English translations of four Dialogue
hymns can be found in S. Brock, Sogiatha: Syriac Dialogue
Hymns (Kottayam: St. Joseph’s Press, 1987). For an
English translation and commentary on the Dialogue between
Cyril and Nestorius, see S. Brock, “‘Syriac
Dialogue’—An Example from the Past,”
Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies 18.1 (2004):
57–70.
These hymns, which have been included in
Syriac liturgy since the fourth century, share a common
structure and format.
Although the manuscript evidence dates to the
eighth and ninth centuries at the earliest, internal evidence
demonstrates a much earlier date of origin for this genre in
Syriac literature. Sebastian Brock argues that the Dialogues
were already adapted from Mesopotamian Precedence Disputes into
a distinctive, Syriac genre by the time of Ephrem, whom he sees
drawing freely upon the stylized form in his madrashe.
Both East- and West-Syriac traditions also share several
sogyatha in their liturgy, which points to a date of
origin before their split. Moreover, the phrasing of certain
theological concepts also indicates an early date. For example,
several hymns commonly write that Jesus “clothed
himself” or “put on” a body (lbeš
pagrâ), which would later be an unusual and
imprecise way to describe the incarnation. Brock, therefore,
estimates a common literary production of early Syriac Dialogue
hymns among the East- and West-Syriac churches around the
beginning of the fifth century, though the exegetical form is
evidenced already in the fourth century by Ephrem. Brock,
“Syriac Dialogue Poems: Marginalia,” 35–6.
Each hymn is focused on a dialogue or
debate between two main characters. After a brief introduction,
the pair alternate arguments in support of their side of an
issue. At the end of the debate, a winner is pronounced.
Structurally, Syriac Dialogue hymns follow a 7 + 7 couplet
meter
In a few cases there is slight variation on this
typical meter. For instance, the Dialogue between Joseph
and Benjamin has a 6 + 6, 6 + 6 meter, the Dialogue
between Mary and the Gardner an 8 + 8, 8 + 8 meter, and
Ephrem’s Dialogue between Death and Satan has a
7 + 4, 7 + 4 meter. Brock, “Syriac Dialogue Poems:
Marginalia,” 42, 48, 54.
and often employ an alphabetic acrostic.
The acrostic often commences after the introductory
material at the beginning of the debate. Eight of the
twenty-six hymns, however, have no alphabetic acrostic. See
Sebastian Brock’s useful chart of the structural
characteristics of each hymn in S. Brock, “Syriac Dispute
Poems: The Various Types,” in Dispute Poems and
Dialogues in the Ancient and Mediaeval Near East: Forms and
Types of Literary Debates in Semitic and Related
Literatures, ed. G. J. Reinink and H. L. J. Vanstiphout
(Leuven: Departement Oriëntalistiek, 1991), 117–19.
There is
also frequently a community response (qala)
intermittently dispersed amid the stanzas.
For a more detailed description of the
characteristics of the Syriac Dialogues see Brock,
“Syriac Dispute Poems: The Various Types,”
109–19.
[4] The
debate format and certain structural characteristics common to
the Syriac Dialogue hymns were borrowed from the Mesopotamian
Precedence Dispute genre, which typically involved a debate
between two personifications who vied for superiority (e.g.,
Summer and Winter, Silver and Copper, Pickaxe and
Plough).
For more on the characteristics of Mesopotamian
Precedence Disputes see R. Murray, “Aramaic and Syriac
Dispute-Poems and their Connections,” in Studia
Aramaica: New Sources and New Approaches, ed. M. J.
Geller, J. C. Greenfield, and M. P. Weitzman (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1995), 160; and S. Brock, “The Dispute
Poem: From Sumer To Syriac,” Journal of Canadian
Society for Syriac Studies 1 (2001): 3–10.
Early Syriac Dialogues demonstrate the most
affinity to the Mesopotamian genre. That is, the characters
were personifications (e.g., Dialogue between the Church
and Synagogue) and they disputed who was greater (e.g.,
Dialogue between the Two Thieves). Later Syriac
Dialogues, however, began to transform the genre. These
Dialogue authors co-opted the context of dispute from the
Mesopotamian genre, but replaced the disputants with biblical
characters. Furthermore, these characters took opposing sides
of an issue rather than debating which of them was greater.
[5] In an
attempt to fuse the Mesopotamian genre with biblical
narratives, Syriac Dialogue authors expanded the biblical texts
in a manner that paralleled the Jewish exegetical technique of
narrative aggadah.
I do not mean to imply that aggadic
exegesis is static and can be coherently classified only in
this way. For a discussion of the various forms of narrative
aggadah, see J. Heinemann, “The Nature of the
Aggadah,” in Midrash and Literature, ed. G.
Hartman and S. Budick (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986),
esp. 42–45.
This interpretive method shared by
both Jews and Syriac Christians is characterized as a running
expansion or elaboration of biblical narratives.
For a discussion of the genre boundaries of what
Philip Alexander calls the “rewritten bible,” See
P. S. Alexander, “Retelling the Old Testament,” in
It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture, ed. D. A.
Carson and H. G. M. Williamson (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1988), 99–121. This sort of expansion is also
reminiscent of the rhetorical technique of amplification. See
esp. Aristotle, On Rhetoric I.9, in G. Kennedy,
Aristotle, On Rhetoric (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1991), 78–87. For an examination of the
relationship between rhetorical techniques and rabbinic
exegesis see D. Daube, “Rabbinic Methods of
Interpretation and Hellenistic Rhetoric,” Hebrew
Union College Annual 22 (1949): 239–264.
Biblical stories
were retold with supplementary insights regarding the biblical
protagonists’ feelings, motivation, reasoning, and inner
thoughts and prayers inserted into the new narration.
The use of Jewish aggadot in Greek
and Latin Christian literature has long been a topic of
interest to scholars of Patristics. Most scholars have been
concerned with the points of contact between Jewish and
Christian interpretations, but very few have been concerned
with shared exegetical methods. Adam Kamesar’s article is
the notable exception. Kamesar has argued that
Alexandrian-Palestinian Christians used Jewish aggadot
for historical knowledge or background information (as a part
of “historical” exegesis), while Antiochene
exegetes were more skeptical of the historical validity of the
aggadic expansions. See A. Kamesar, “The
evaluation of the narrative aggada in Greek and Latin patristic
literature,” Journal of Theological Studies 45.1
(April 1994): 37–71. For a helpful review of publications
on the topic, see J. Baskin, “Rabbinic-Patristic
Exegetical Contacts in Late Antiquity: A Bibliographical
Reappraisal,” in Approaches to Ancient Judaism,
ed. W. S. Green, Brown Judaic Studies (Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1978), 53–80.
Such
expansions made room for the author’s commentary on the
biblical narratives within the retelling of the
narratives themselves.
For more detailed discussions of Jewish
aggadah, see J. Heinemann, “The Nature of the
Aggadah,” 41–55; G. Vermes, Scripture and
Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies (Leiden: Brill,
1973).
[6] We know
that exegesis akin to narrative aggadah was utilized
by a handful of Syriac commentators. We find traces of the
method in both Ephrem’s Commentary on Genesis
and the anonymous Cave
of Treasures.
For a broader context of Jewish literature
and exegesis in the Syriac tradition, see S. Brock,
“Jewish traditions in Syriac sources,” Journal
of Jewish Studies 30 (1979): 212–232.
This
similarity with Jewish exegetical practices is not surprising
as recent scholarship has demonstrated a high degree of
interdependence between Jewish and Christian exegetical methods
and literature.
Michael Weitzman and Han Drijvers represent
the two poles of opinion in the hotly-debated scholarship on
Jewish and Christian relations in Syria. See H. J. W. Drijvers,
“Jews and Christians at Edessa,” Journal of
Jewish Studies 36 (Spring 1985): 88–102; H. J. W.
Drijvers, “Syrian Christianity and Judaism,” in
Jews among Pagans and
Christians in the Roman Empire, ed. J. Lieu, J. North, and
T. Rajak (London: Routledge, 1992), 124–46; M.
Weitzman, “From Judaism to Christianity: The Syriac
Version of the Hebrew Bible,” in Jews among pagans
and Christians in the Roman Empire, ed. J. Lieu, J. North,
and T. Rajak (London: Routledge, 1992), 147–73.
Particularly in terms of biblical exegesis, Lucas Van Rompay
briefly discusses parallels between Jewish and Christian
reading practices in L. Van Rompay, “The Christian Syriac
Tradition of Interpretation,” in Hebrew Bible/Old
Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, ed. M.
Sæbø (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1996), 616–17, while Tryggve Kronholm offers a detailed
examination of Jewish exegetical influence on Ephrem in T.
Kronholm, Motifs from Genesis 1–11 in the Genuine
Hymns of Ephrem the Syrian (Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1978), esp.
215–222. For a specific example of Jewish and Christian
exegetical interdependence, see N. Koltun-Fromm,
“Sexuality and Holiness: Semitic-Christian and Jewish
Conceptualization of Sexual Behavior,” Vigiliae
Christianae 54 (2000): 375–395.
In fact, with particular relation to the
Dialogue hymns, the shared exegetical heritage of Syriac Jews
and Christians is evidenced clearly in a variety of extant
(Jewish and Christian) dialogues among the months of the
year.
See S. Brock, “A Dispute of the Months
and Some Related Syriac Texts,” Journal of Semitic
Studies 30.2 (Autumn 1985): esp. 184–5.
“Freeze-frame” Exegesis
[7] Syriac
Dialogue authors combined the Mesopotamian genre with expanded
readings of the biblical stories to develop a distinctive form
of biblical interpretation. Although multiple authors composed
Syriac Dialogue hymns over a large span of years, a consistent
exegetical method is employed in nearly every hymn. Syriac
Dialogue authors typically utilized what I will call the
“freeze-frame” approach to biblical
narratives.
This term was inspired by Sebastian
Brock’s discussion of the “religious drama”
of the Dialogue hymns in Brock, “Syriac Dialogue Poems:
Marginalia,” 37.
After introducing the setting of a particular
biblical story at the beginning of the hymn (often following
the Peshitta quite closely), the author would freeze
the biblical story and expand that frame to fill in a more
detailed conversation between two biblical characters. A
question or doubt raised by a character in the biblical
narrative often provided the starting point of the
“freeze-frame” section since such expressions were
easily expanded into a larger debate or dialogue. At the end of
the hymn, the author pronounced an official ruling on the issue
discussed and then resumed where the biblical narrative left
off.
[8] The
Dialogue between Zechariah and the Angel is a prime
example of the Syriac Dialogues’ exegetical
method.
For the Syriac and English versions of this
Dialogue see Brock, Sughyotho
Mgabbyotho,
18–22, and Brock, Sogiatha, 7–13.
In the introduction, the author sets the scene
for the conversation between Zechariah and the angel. As he
describes Zechariah entering the Temple with the
incense,
As was common in Syriac tradition, the
author assumes that the priest Zechariah was placing the
incense in the Holy of Holies during the feast of Atonement.
the author follows the Peshitta
nearly verbatim.
Luke 1:5–25.
The angel of the Lord, standing “to
the right of the altar of incense” (men yammin
madbhâ d-besmê)
The Peshitta differs slightly,
replacing the construct state with the emphatic state plus a
dalath: (men yamminâ d-madbhâ d-besmê).
sensed
that Zechariah was frightened, and said: “Do not be
afraid” (lâ tedhal). The angel then prophesied that Zechariah
would have a son, one who “will not drink wine or strong
drink” (
ha
mrâ
w-šakrâ lâ neštê). In this
introduction the author follows the biblical text quite
closely, making only slight alterations to fit the narrative
into his meter restrictions.
For instance, the author changed Luke 1:15
of the Peshitta, “while he is in the womb he
will be filled with the holy spirit”
(w-ruhâ d-qudšâ
netmlê
ʿ
ad hu
b-karsâ d-'emeh), which is fifteen syllables, into
the conventional 7 + 7 meter by rephrasing the verse to read:
“while still in the womb, the Lord will fill him with the
Holy Spirit and consecrate him:” w-ruhâ d-qudšâ b-gaw
marbʿâ nemlew(hy) Mâryâ
wa-nqaddšiw(hy).
[9] The
subsequent discussion between Zechariah and the angel in the
Dialogue hymn is an amplification of Zechariah’s
Peshitta inquiry: “How should I understand [that
Elizabeth will bear a child] for I am an elderly man and my
wife [has lived] many days?”
Luke 1:18.
In fact Zechariah’s
first lines of the hymn are a paraphrase of this question:
“How, sir, shall this be, that Elizabeth should have a
child? She is old and barren too; and I am old, as you can
see.”
Brock, Sughyotho
Mgabbyotho, 19; Brock, Sogiatha, 8.
The following twenty-eight alternating stanzas
are comprised of Zechariah repeating this question (in various
forms) as the angel presents arguments that God is both capable
and willing to perform the miracle. After the angel convinces
Zechariah of God’s plan, he strikes Zechariah dumb and
the hymn returns to the remaining biblical narrative,
describing Zechariah’s exit from the temple and his
attempt to communicate with the people outside. Again, in the
conclusion of the hymn the biblical narrative is followed
closely.
[10]
There are a number of slight variations from this typical
“freeze-frame” pattern. In some Syriac Dialogue
hymns the “freeze-frame” is not an expansion of a
biblical verse, but rather an addition of a missing scene. For
instance, one Dialogue hymn describes a conversation between
Mary and the Magi who came to worship the newborn Jesus. In the
canonical texts there is no recorded dialogue between the Magi
and Mary and/or Joseph. It must be assumed by readers/hearers
of the biblical stories though that when the Magi were
presenting their gifts to Jesus they conversed with his
parents. From this assumption, the Dialogue author fills in a
scene that was absent from the biblical record.
For the Syriac text, see Brock,
Sughyotho
Mgabbyotho, 34–8; Sebastian
Brock and Ronald Beshara provide English translations in Brock,
Bride of Light, 125–132, and Beshara, Mary,
Ship of Treasures, 85–8.
[11]
Additionally, not all hymns freeze a frame of a canonical text,
but some rather apply the method to an extra-canonical source.
The Dialogue between Joseph and Mary,
For the Syriac text and English translation,
see Brock, Sughyotho
Mgabbyotho, 29–33;
Brock, Bride of Light, 118–124; and Beshara,
Mary, Ship of Treasures, 83–5.
for instance,
possibly takes its starting point from the famous apocryphal
text, the Protevangelium Jacobi (PJ).
The Syriac versions of Protevangelium
Jacobi, which are preserved only in fragments, have been
dated to the fifth century. For more details on the four Syriac
manuscripts see E. de Strycker, La forme la plus ancienne
du Protévangile de Jacques. Recherches sur le papyrus
Bodmer 5 avec une édition critique du texte grec et une
traduction annotée (Bruxelles:
Société des Bollandistes, 1961), 35f,
353–355.
Following the typical “freeze-frame” pattern, this
Syriac Dialogue expands upon the exchange between Joseph and
Mary after he has discovered her pregnancy. Although the
PJ creates a conversation not found in the minimal
narrative of Matthew 1:18–21, the Dialogue between
Joseph and Mary develops the conversation even
further.
Although it is possible that the
Dialogue between Joseph and Mary is based solely on
the Matthean passage, this dialogue appears to be following and
expanding upon the conversation between Joseph and Mary found
in the PJ. First, the Dialogue relates Mary to her
“poor parents,” central figures in the first half
of the PJ. Second, the Dialogue picks up on
Joseph’s extended rebuke of Mary, which is not found in
the Matthean version of the story.
In this extended dialogue, Mary is able to
make several arguments defending her miraculous conception (and
consequently, her purity).
Mary appeals to Eve as proof that humans can
come into existence without intercourse, while also claiming
the uniqueness of her Son and, therefore, the lack of need for
precedence. Additionally, she argues that her son (when he is
born or once he has grown) will be her best witness and will
prove her innocence. Brock, Sughyotho Mgabbyotho,
29–33; Brock, Bride of Light, 118–124;
Beshara, Mary, Ship of Treasures, 83–5.
At the end of the exchange, the
hymn returns to the PJ narrative and describes the
angel’s visit to Joseph, which supports Mary’s
case. Likewise, the Dialogue(s) between the Sinful Woman
and Satan (referencing the woman who anointed Jesus with
oil
Luke 7:36–50 (cf. Matt 26:6–13;
Mark 14:3–9; John 12:1–8).
) expands a memra commonly attributed
to Ephrem, which describes Satan’s attempt to dissuade
the “sinful woman” from anointing Jesus.
There are several manuscripts (representing
both the East- and West-Syriac traditions) that record the
exchange in slightly different versions. Sebastian Brock,
therefore, has concluded that the versions were likely authored
by different people who used the memra attributed to
Ephrem as their guide. See S. Brock, “The sinful woman
and Satan,” 22. For the Syriac text, see E. Beck, Des
Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers, Sermones II, Corpus
Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 311, Scriptores Syri 134
(Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1970), 78–87.
For a German translation, see E. Beck, Des Heiligen Ephraem
des Syrers, Sermones II, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum
Orientalium 312, Scriptores Syri 135 (Louvain, 1970),
99–109. For an English translation, see A. Edward
Johnston’s translation in Nicene and Post Nicene
Fathers, ser. 2, vol. 13, ed. P. Schaff and H. Wace (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 336–341.
Following the memra, the authors of this Dialogue
describe the conversation between the sinful woman, as she buys
oil in the marketplace, and Satan, who appears to her as a
young man. The conclusion of the hymn then cites her
interaction with Jesus from the biblical narrative: “She
entered His presence all in tears, she received (what she
wanted) and returned in joy.”
Brock, “The sinful woman and
Satan,” 52.
[12]
Finally, there are a few hymns that diverge from the exegetical
conventions more pronouncedly. While the main debate in the
Dialogue between Mary and the Angel is an expansion of
the biblical narrative, the biblical context is neither cited
verbatim nor paraphrased in the introduction and conclusion of
the hymn as is typical of the “freeze frame”
approach.
Luke 1:26–38.
Rather the introduction of the hymn is
supplicative in nature, prayerfully asking God for the words to
properly discuss Jesus’ incarnation.
“O Power of the Father who came down
and dwelt,
compelled by his love, in a virgin’s womb,
grant me utterance that I may speak
of this great deed of yours which cannot be
grasped.”
Brock, Sughyotho Mgabbyotho, 23; Brock,
Sogiatha, 14.
Likewise, the
hymn concludes with words of praise, rather than a reconnection
to the biblical story.
Brock, Sughyotho Mgabbyotho, 27;
Brock, Sogiatha, 20.
The “freeze-frame”
method has been set aside entirely in the Dialogue between
Mary and the Gardner,
For English translations, see Brock,
Bride of Light, 132–134; Beshara, Mary, Ship
of Treasures, 65–67.
which follows the pace of the
biblical narrative.
John 20:11–18.
Rather than interjecting and expanding a
particular section, the author chose to expand several sections
of the biblical narrative in order to address multiple issues,
such as Jesus’ resurrection and humanity’s
salvation.
[13]
Despite these slight variations in the
“freeze-frame” approach, the majority of Syriac
Dialogue authors consistently expanded the biblical narrative,
opening up the stories to create a space for theological
musing. In this way, Syriac Dialogue authors did not simply
comment on the biblical narratives but rather placed their
expansions and interpretations into the voices of the original
biblical characters. These interpretations, therefore, appeared
to have been sanctioned by the characters themselves, eliding
the exegetical work of the authors. Additionally, since the
hymns were sung and heard—rather than read—the line
between what was originally in the biblical stories and what
was added became blurred and the Dialogue authors’
interpretations were legitimated as they were seamlessly
interwoven into the canonical text. This use of biblical
material is particularly successful because the new story
contains “echoes of the old story.”
David Dawson discusses a similar mode of
“interpretation as composition” with regard to
Valentinian allegory. He argues that the author of a revised
biblical narrative “garners the unwitting sympathy, and
perhaps even support, of readers who, were they to see how
seriously their former favorite story had been undermined,
displaced, or absorbed, might otherwise be shocked at the
interpreter’s audacity.” See Dawson,
Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision,
127–45, esp. 130.
Hearers of the
hymns, who recognize the familiar story, are predisposed to
receiving these new versions, possibly unaware of how—or
the extent to which—the hymns’ authors revised the
biblical narratives.
[14] The
Syriac Dialogues thus created—and perpetuated through
regular, liturgical performance—new biblical traditions
that complemented the imprecise canonical versions. In this
way, the authors of the Syriac Dialogues expanded the
biblical narratives in order to limit possible
interpretations of the biblical material.
[15]
Syriac Dialogue authors were not unique in this endeavor. It
was not uncommon for Greek and Latin commentators to clarify
ambiguous passages of scripture, in many instances, taking
liberty to describe the intentions, rationale, and hidden
thoughts of biblical protagonists. For instance, David Dawson
has demonstrated how Valentinus inserted his biblical
interpretations into new compositions that “did not
distinguish quoted or borrowed material from what he
create[d]... Instead he absorbed his sources almost entirely
into his own imaginative compositions.”
Dawson, Allegorical Readers and Cultural
Revision, 127–128.
In terms of
oral presentations of biblical material, we find several
preachers who regularly expanded biblical narratives in their
homilies through dialogues between biblical characters.
See P. Allen, “The Sixth-Century Greek
Homily: A Re-Assessment,” in Preacher and Audience:
Studies in Early Christian and Byzantine Homiletics, ed.
M. Cunningham and P. Allen (Leiden: Brill, 1998),
213–214; and for a brief discussion of the use of
dialogues in the preaching of Proclus (e.g., Homilies 7, 28,
and 35), see J. Barkhuizen, “Proclus of Constantinople: A
Popular Preacher in Fifth-Century Constantinople,” in
Preacher and Audience: Studies in Early Christian and
Byzantine Homiletics, ed. M. Cunningham and P. Allen
(Leiden: Brill, 1998), 179–200, esp. 192.
Such
exegetical practice in Greek and Latin liturgies deserves more
attention.
Pedagogical Function of Dialogue Hymns
[16] The
Dialogue hymns were a site of flexibility within a relatively
stable textual tradition. It was here that interpreters could
alter, add, or leave out portions of the biblical narratives to
retell the story in a way that benefited their theological
agendas. This method of expansion was attractive to Syriac
authors because it provided not only a space for debate of
pressing theological issues, but also biblical justification to
support one side of the debate. When the biblical narratives
were ambiguous, contradictory, or worse yet, silent on their
contemporary issues, the Dialogue authors found a way to open
up the canonical narratives so as to buttress their stance on a
contemporary theological issue.
Cf. Heinemann, “The Nature of the
Aggadah,” 49.
[17]
After reading the Syriac Dialogue hymns, their important
pedagogical function becomes immediately clear. The biblical
characters in the hymns were made to discuss in detail aspects
of Christology (e.g., the nature of Christ, his incarnation,
and his salvific resurrection),
See in particular the Dialogue between
Joseph and Mary and the Dialogue between Jesus and
John the Baptist in Brock, Sughyotho Mgabbyotho,
29–33 and 39–43. This pedagogical function is most
evident in hymns like the Dialogue between Cyril and
Nestorius, which I have not analyzed in detail because it
deviates markedly from the “freeze frame” approach
outlined above. For an English translation and useful
commentary on this hymn, see Brock, “‘Syriac
Dialogue’,” 57–70.
as well as the complex
relation between Judaism and Christianity.
See the Dialogue between Christ and the
Synagogue and the Dialogue between the Church and the
Synagogue. Brock, Sughyotho Mgabbyotho,
44–49.
These
conversations helped congregants to discern their place amidst
the varying forms of Christianity current in late antiquity. As
Averil Cameron has argued, controversies of theology and
practice were so common to Christian communities of the fourth
and fifth centuries that the Christian Mediterranean could be
characterized as a “culture of dispute.”
A. Cameron, “Disputations, Polemical
Literature and the Formation of Opinion in the Early Byzantine
Period” in Dispute Poems and Dialogues in the Ancient
and Mediaeval Near East: Forms and Types of Literary Debates in
Semitic and Related Literatures, ed. G. J. Reinink and H.
L. J. Vanstiphout (Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1991),
91–108. See also R. Lim, Public Disputation, Power,
and Social Order in Late Antiquity (Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1995).
Christians became well versed in defending their actions and
beliefs from the attacks of “outsiders.”
Cameron, “Disputations,” 99f.
At the
same time, many Christians were busy weeding out theological
heresies that opposed their sense of orthodoxy from within
Christianity.
Cameron, “Disputations,” 103.
Hymnody in general and the Dialogue hymns in
particular, responded to such theological crises in an
entertaining and instructive way. In fact, Jacob of Serug
plainly states that “Ephrem had trained choirs of
consecrated virgins to sing the madrashe in the
liturgy explicitly for instructing the congregation in right
doctrine.”
See Susan Harvey’s extended discussion
of Jacob’s citation in S. Harvey, “Spoken Words,
Voiced Silence: Biblical Women in Syriac Tradition,”
Journal of Early Christian Studies 9.1 (Spring 2001):
127–128; and S. Harvey, “Revisiting the Daughters
of the Covenant: Women’s Choirs and Sacred Song in
Ancient Syriac Christianity,” Hugoye 8.2 (July
2005).
The need to instruct congregations on the
theological issues of the day drove Syriac Dialogue authors to
create a useful exegetical technique and hymn form.
[18] What
makes the exegetical work of the Syriac Dialogues even more
striking is the far-reaching and performative aspects of their
biblical interpretations. Lucas Van Rompay has noted that
“unlike exegetical commentaries, which were used by
scholars and students, homilies [and hymns] reached a much
wider audience” and therefore were particularly useful
for their paranetic function.
Van Rompay, “Christian Syriac
Tradition of Interpretation,” 641.
As a regular part of Syriac
liturgy, the Syriac Dialogue hymns educated their congregation
first on church doctrine and second on how to properly
interpret and understand certain biblical narratives.
[19]
Dialogue hymns were sung at important times of the liturgical
year, including Nativity, Epiphany, and Holy Week. The
Dialogue between the Angel and Mary was sung during
Advent. The Dialogue between the Sinful Woman and
Satan was traditionally sung on the Thursday of Holy Week.
The two thieves disputed in a hymn on Good Friday, while the
repentant thief debated with the cherub who guards the gates of
Paradise on Holy Saturday.
Note that this Dialogue hymn conflates the
Garden of Eden and Heaven, considering both to be the same
“Paradise.” The author, therefore, assumed that the
cherub who was commissioned to guard the garden paradise after
the expulsion of Adam and Eve (Gen 3:24) would be the same
cherub to admit Christians into the heavenly paradise. See S.
Brock, “Dialogue Hymns of the Syriac Churches,”
Sobornost 5:2 (1983): 39–40; Brock,
“Syriac Dialogue Poems: Marginalia,” 42–3,
45, 46–8.
[20] The
lines of the dialoguing characters were sung antiphonally by
two separate choirs.
Evidence of this can be gleaned from the
fact that several liturgical manuscripts contain either the
even or the uneven numbers of stanzas. For the remaining
portions of the hymn, they refer to their “brother”
manuscript.
In this performative context of liturgy,
the lessons of the Dialogue hymns were not merely heard, but
experienced by the members of the alternating choirs.
See Susan Harvey’s fascinating
discussion of “performed speech” in terms of
women’s voices in the Syriac liturgy in Harvey,
“Spoken Words, Voiced Silence,” 124–131.
As the
lines of the dialoguing characters were sung, the singers
literally took on the voices of the characters, allowing them
to enter thoroughly into the debates. In other words, the
church service became one (if not the only) sanctioned site to
debate the theological issues of the day. Although the singing
of the Dialogue hymns allowed for the embodied expressions of
various theological positions, the authors of the Dialogue
hymns (and the church leaders who sanctioned their performance
in the liturgy) in the end approved only one authoritative
stance. The final pronouncement on the issue found at the end
of each hymn left no room for church members to deviate. Just
as the singers embodied the debate, so too they gave voice to
the “orthodox” judgment ultimately endorsed by each
hymn. Congregations, therefore, were instructed on church
doctrine by embodying the doctrine itself through the
performance of the hymns.
[21]
Additionally, the congregation members who were not part of the
alternating choirs participated in community refrains (many of
which were shared among various hymns). These refrains were
interspersed between the stanzas and played a role in policing
congregants to come down on the “proper” side of
the issue. For instance, three Dialogue hymns shared the
following refrain:
Praise to You, Lord for at Your coming
sinners turned from their wickedness and
entered into the protection of Eden’s Garden,
which is the holy church.
This refrain is found in the Dialogues
between Joseph and Mary, Mary and the Magi, and
Cherub and the Thief.
By the end of each hymn, the congregants would know which
side of the issues constituted “wickedness” (e.g.,
improper opinions regarding Jesus’ conception and
incarnation) and likely monitored themselves to “turn
from” such opinions.
[22]
Since the hymns were sung side by side with biblical readings,
congregants were taught not only how to think about theological
issues of their day but also how to interpret biblical stories
in an “orthodox” manner. The hymns
clarified—by limiting—the meaning or significance
that could be extracted from the canonical stories. By pairing
the biblical narrative with an authorized interpretation (in
hymn form) the congregation was given the tools to interpret
the biblical narratives “properly.”
The Compromised Characterization of Biblical
Protagonists
[23] It
is clear that composers of Syriac Dialogue hymns were chiefly
concerned with imparting proper theological instruction to
their congregants; the form and performance of such hymns were
well thought out and organized to create such an effect. The
hymns’ unqualified focus on presenting
“orthodox” theology (particularly Christology),
however, generated an interesting by-product concerning the
depiction of biblical protagonists. Both the framework of
expansion, which was launched from biblical protagonists’
doubts and questions, and the concern to detail Christological
disputes (e.g., the nature of Christ, his incarnation, and his
salvific resurrection) overshadowed the desire to protect the
reputation of some of the Bible’s most beloved
characters. While many Greek and Latin interpreters strove to
protect the reputations of their beloved forefathers, this
concern was deprioritized in the Syriac Dialogue hymns.
[24] With
the goal to expand biblical scenes into more detailed
theological discussions, the Syriac Dialogue hymns used the
questions and doubts of biblical characters as starting points.
These blemishes or momentary lapses of character noted in the
biblical narratives were amplified in the Syriac Dialogues and
served as a frame to initiate a discussion, as well as to keep
it going. For instance, in the Lukan version of John the
Baptist’s miraculous conception, readers will notice that
Zechariah hesitates to accept the angel’s message, and
questions the angel’s prophesy only once.
Luke 1:18.
In the Syriac
Dialogue, however, Zechariah questions the prophesy again and
again.
Brock, Sughyotho Mgabbyotho,
18–22; Brock, Sogiatha, 7–13.
This repeated contention is a narrative
strategy that creates a space for the angel to explain in
detail how and why God would enact the miraculous birth. This
portrayal, however, runs the risk of depicting Zechariah as
ignorant or dim-witted in order to allow room for instruction
on the incarnation. In fact, by the end of the hymn, the singer
or hearer might be more apt to agree that the angel’s
punishment for Zechariah’s unbelief—striking him
dumb until the birth of the child—is warranted much more
so than a reader or hearer of the biblical text.
[25]
Likewise, in the Dialogue between John the Baptist and
Jesus, John’s repeated protests (when asked to
baptize Jesus) frame the movements of the Dialogue. Each of
John’s refusals allows a space in the hymn for additional
theological arguments; the character Jesus is thus able to
discuss the necessity of being baptized, the necessity of being
baptized by a human rather than a heavenly creature, and the
paradoxical ability of a divine being to be enclosed by a
material river.
Brock, Sughyotho Mgabbyotho,
40–41; Brock, Sogiatha, 23–24.
John’s refusals keep the Dialogue going
and demarcate sections of Christological instruction, but also
make John vulnerable to being perceived as both stubborn and
ignorant.
[26] It
is clear that Dialogue authors used the human flaws of biblical
characters as a narrative strategy that both launched the
Dialogues and kept the debates alive. The authors seemed
unconcerned with how this technique might compromise the
reputations of certain biblical characters. Moreover, the
singers or hearers of the hymns might not have been offended by
such depictions, considering them to be merely reflections of
these characters’ humanity. This lack of concern to
protect biblical characters at all costs from the
appearance of vulnerability, however, is striking in
comparison with Greek and Latin Christian exegesis.
[27]
Unlike the authors of the Dialogue hymns, many Greek and Latin
commentators went to great lengths to sanitize their biblical
protagonists’ reputations. These commentators regularly
explained away or justified the indiscretions of the beloved
forefathers that might have been unsavory to both Christians
and Christian adversaries.
For example, in response to Faustus’
claim that Abraham impatiently and lustfully pursued his
servant Hagar when his wife Sara failed to conceive, Augustine
launched a three-pronged defense. First, he claimed that
Abraham did not indulge his bodily appetite irrationally, but
rather under the guidance of reason, with divinely-instituted
procreation as his goal. Second, Augustine cites 1 Corinthians
7:4, to demonstrate that Abraham’s actions were
consistent with marital obedience to his wife’s (also
highly-rational) desire for children. Third, Augustine pays
careful attention to the sequence of events in the biblical
narrative to show that God had not yet told Abraham from whom
his countless descendents would derive. (Augustine, Against
Faustus 22.1–59). Likewise, to defend
Abraham’s willingness to commit patricide, many
commentators portray Isaac as a willing victim. (1 Clement
31:2–4; Philo, On Abraham 172) Additionally,
when confronted with Jacob’s double-deception of his
brother Esau, commentators creatively read Genesis to claim
that Esau willingly gave up his birthright, and that
Isaac’s blindness was God’s way of ensuring that
Jacob received the blessing. (Ephrem, Commentary on
Genesis 23:2; 25:2; Philo, Questions on Genesis
4:196) With regard to the patriarchs’ sexual
indiscretions, see E. Clark, “Contesting Abraham: The
Ascetic Reader and the Politics of Intertextuality,” in
The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor
of Wayne A. Meeks, ed. L. M. White and O. L. Yarbrough
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 353–65; and E.
Clark, Reading Renunciation: Asceticism and Scripture in
Early Christianity (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1999).
The difference between these two
sorts of exegesis might be prompted by the kinds of theological
issues—and opponents—that were most pressing on the
different Christian communities. On the one hand, the
Marcionite and Manichaean opponents of Tertullian and Augustine
advanced theological arguments that directly implicated
particular biblical figures (particularly the patriarchs). For
example, in order to invalidate the God of the Israelites,
Marcionites attacked key figures of the Hebrew Bible. In
response, Christians like Tertullian spent a great deal of
energy interpreting the biblical narratives in such a way as to
exonerate these major characters.
For example, when Marcionites accused Moses
of fashioning an idol in the form of the brazen serpent,
Tertullian immediately defends him, maintaining that Moses
merely “ornamented” this divinely-sanctioned tool
of healing. Tertullian, Against Marcion 2.22.
On the other hand, the
range of theological issues addressed in the Syriac Dialogue
hymns tended to focus on the Christological controversies
surrounding the person and nature of Christ. This different
focus might account for the disregard of Syriac Dialogue
authors to preserve and protect the character of other key
biblical protagonists; they need not protect characters that
were not under attack. Thus, the need to define precisely the
character and nature of Jesus, the central figure under
dispute, overshadowed all others. As a result, Syriac Dialogue
authors fearlessly expanded upon the blemishes of other
biblical protagonists in order to stabilize important points of
Christology.
For instance, recall that in the
Dialogue between John the Baptist and Jesus,
John’s vulnerability is exposed in order to explain
various aspects of Jesus’ nature. See paragraph 25 above.
Brock, Sughyotho Mgabbyotho, 40–41; Brock,
Sogiatha, 23–24.
[28] If,
as I argue, Syriac Dialogue authors strove to protect disputed
characters alone, it should not be surprising to find that Mary
was also consistently protected from vulnerability. Mary is a
conversation partner in four of the Dialogue hymns and in each
one, although she may express doubt or hesitation, her doubts
are consistently legitimated to protect her from negative
depiction.
Syriac texts for the dialogues between the
Angel and Mary, Joseph and Mary, and Mary
and the Magi can be found in Brock, Sughyotho
Mgabbyotho, 23–28, 29–33, and 34–38. For
English translations, see Brock, Bride of Light,
111–134; Beshara, Mary, Ship of Treasures,
65–67; 83–93.
For example, in the Dialogue between Mary
and the Angel, Mary wonders about the message the angel
imparts to her, but she is sheltered from being cast as a
doubter like Zechariah. Rather, a concept such as the
incarnation is simply too complicated for Mary’s weak
understanding. (Although modern readers may cringe at what now
appears to be a negative depiction of Mary’s
intelligence, in the hymn, this gendered excuse guards her from
seeming to lack faith.) Thus, Mary’s questions are not
cast in terms of antagonism, but rather in terms of her
inability to understand such magnificent claims; she says,
“all this that you say is most difficult, so do not find
fault with me.”
Mary also says, “what you are saying
is remote from me, and what it means I have no idea,” and
“what you have said is alien to me, I am quite unable to
grasp what it means.” Brock, Sughyotho
Mgabbyotho, 24; Brock, Sogiatha, 15, 16.
Later, Mary’s piety makes
her wary to immediately receive the angel’s prophesy.
Recalling the trouble Eve caused by carelessly paying heed to
the serpent, Mary is depicted as acting cautiously and with
great discernment as she says to the angel:
I am afraid, sir, to accept you,
for when Eve, my mother, accepted
the serpent who spoke as a friend,
from her former glory she was snatched away.
Later in the hymn she repeats this caution,
saying, “I am afraid, sir, to accept you, in case there
be some deceit in what you say.” Brock. Sughyotho
Mgabbyotho, 24, 25; Brock, Sogiatha, 16, 18.
Thus, in this hymn, Mary’s responses are able to keep
the conversation alive, while Mary is simultaneously shielded
from blame.
[29] In
the Dialogue between Mary and the Magi, Mary seems
initially stunned as the Magi tell her that her son will be a
great king. Later in the Dialogue, however, she reveals that
she knew about her son’s future glory all along (even
before the Magi), but was obediently keeping the secret of the
Angel. By portraying Mary as guarding a secret the author
protects her from seeming ignorant. On the contrary, Mary gains
the upper hand by revealing to the Magi another secret that was
not disclosed to them: she conceived and birthed the child as a
virgin.
Brock. Sughyotho Mgabbyotho,
34–8; Beshara, Mary, Ship of Treasures, 88.
[30]
Finally, in the Dialogue between Mary and the Gardener
(note that in this hymn the “Mary” who meets Jesus
at the tomb is his mother, not Mary Magdalene
For more on this common conflation of Marys
in the Syriac tradition, see R. Murray, Symbols of Church
and Kingdom: A Study in Early Syriac Tradition
(Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2004), 146–48 and
329–35.
), Jesus’
disguise hides his identity from Mary. Since she is not
physically able to recognize her son, Mary is blameless. In
fact, Mary is cast in a positive light for her persistence to
find her son and to understand the significance of his
resurrection.
Brock, Bride of Light,
132–134; Beshara, Mary, Ship of Treasures,
66–7.
[31] In
the end, it appears that protecting Mary’s reputation is
more important than preserving the integrity of her male
counterparts. She is the only biblical figure, aside from
Jesus, to require such safeguards. This attention to Mary
confirms the vital role she played in Syriac Christianity.
Since she was implicated so strongly in Christological issues,
such as the conception and incarnation of Christ, her character
deserved as much protection as her son’s.
Conclusions
[32] The
Syriac Dialogue hymns are an important genre within the
Christian literature of late antiquity. The authors of these
hymns creatively interwove the Mesopotamian Dispute genre with
an expanded reading of biblical narratives to craft a hymn form
that entertained as well as instructed. Driven by current
theological debate, they guided certain
interpretations—and excluded others—through an
expansion of biblical narratives. In this way, they also shored
biblical support for their theological positions by putting
their interpretations back into the mouths of revered biblical
characters. Since their new interpretations were fixed within
the liturgy of the Syrian churches (both East and West), they
taught congregants how to think about certain theological
issues, as well as how to interpret the Bible properly,
creating a seamless unity between the biblical narratives and
their interpretations of those narratives. An understanding of
this distinctive exegetical method will hopefully point
scholars to similar methods that can be located in Greek and
Latin homilies and biblical commentaries._______
Notes
_______
Bibliography
Alexander, P. S. “Retelling the
Old Testament.” In It is Written: Scripture Citing
Scripture, ed. D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988, 99–121.
Allen, P. “The Sixth-Century
Greek Homily: A Re-Assessment.” In Preacher and
Audience: Studies in Early Christian and Byzantine
Homiletics, ed. M. Cunningham and P. Allen. Leiden: Brill,
1998, 201–225.
Barkhuizen, J. “Proclus of
Constantinople: A Popular Preacher in Fifth-Century
Constantinople.” In Preacher and Audience: Studies in
Early Christian and Byzantine Homiletics, ed. M.
Cunningham and P. Allen. Leiden: Brill, 1998,
179–200.
Baskin, J. “Rabbinic-Patristic
Exegetical Contacts in Late Antiquity: A Bibliographical
Reappraisal.” In Approaches to Ancient Judaism,
ed. W. S. Green. Brown Judaic Studies. Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1978, 53–80.
Beck, E. Des Heiligen Ephraem des
Syrers, Sermones II, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum
Orientalium 311, Scriptores Syri 134. Louvain:
Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1970, 78–87.
Beshara, R. Mary, Ship of
Treasures. Lebanon: Diocese of Saint Maron, 1988.
Brock, S. P. Bride of Light:
Hymns on Mary from the Syriac Churches. Kottayam: SEERI,
1994.
—. “Dialogue hymns of the
Syriac Churches.” Sobornost 5:2 (1983):
35–45.
—. “The Dispute between
the Cherub and the Thief.” Hugoye 5.2 (July
2002): 169–93.
—. “A Dispute of the
Months and Some Related Syriac Texts.” Journal of
Semitic Studies 30.2 (Autumn 1985): 181–211.
—. “The Dispute Poem:
From Sumer to Syriac.” Journal of the Canadian
Society for Syriac Studies 1 (2001): 3–10.
—. “Jewish traditions in
Syriac sources.” Journal of Jewish Studies 30
(1979): 212–232.
—. “The Sinful Woman and
Satan: Two Syriac Dialogue Poems.” Oriens
Christianus 72 (1988): 21–62.
—. “‘Syriac
Dialogue’—An Example from the Past.”
Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies 18.1 (2004),
57–70.
—. Sogiatha: Syriac
Dialogue Hymns. The Syrian Churches Series XI. Kottayam:
St. Joseph’s Press, 1987.
—. Sughyotho
Mgabbyotho. Holland: Syrian Orthodox Archdiocese of
Central Europe, 1982.
—. “Syriac Dialogue
Poems: Marginalia to a Recent Edition.” Le
Muséon 97 (1984): 29–58.
—. “Syriac Dispute
Poems: The Various Types.” In Dispute Poems and
Dialogues in the Ancient and Mediaeval Near East: Forms and
Types of Literary Debates in Semitic and Related
Literatures, ed. G. J. Reinink and H. L. J. Vanstiphout.
Leuven: Departement Oriëntalistiek, 1991,
109–119.
Cameron, A. “Disputations,
Polemical Literature and the Formation of Opinion in the Early
Byzantine Period.” In Dispute Poems and Dialogues in
the Ancient and Mediaeval Near East: Forms and Types of
Literary Debates in Semitic and Related Literatures, ed.
G. J. Reinink and H. L. J. Vanstiphout. Leuven: Departement
Oriëntalistiek, 1991, 91–108.
Clark, E. “Contesting Abraham:
The Ascetic Reader and the Politics of Intertextuality.”
In The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in
Honor of Wayne A. Meeks, ed. L. M. White and O. L.
Yarbrough. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995,
353–365.
—. Reading Renunciation:
Asceticism and Scripture in Early Christianity. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1999.
Daube, D. “Rabbinic Methods of
Interpretation and Hellenistic Rhetoric.” Hebrew
Union College
Annual 22 (1949):
239–264.
Dawson, D. Allegorical Readers
and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1992.
de Strycker, E. La forme la plus
ancienne du Protévangile de Jacques: Recherches sur le
papyrus Bodmer 5 avec une édition critique du texte grec
et une traduction annotée. Bruxelles:
Société des Bollandistes, 1961.
Drijvers, H. J. W. “Jews and
Christians at Edessa.” Journal of Jewish Studies
36 (Spring 1985): 88–102.
— “Syrian Christianity
and Judaism.” In Jews among Pagans and Christians in
the Roman Empire, ed. J. Lieu, J. North, and T. Rajak.
London: Routledge, 1992.
Heinemann, J. “The Nature of
the Aggadah.” In Midrash and Literature, ed. G.
Hartman and S. Budick. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986,
41–55.
Harvey, S. “Revisiting the
Daughters of the Covenant: Women’s Choirs and Sacred Song
in Ancient Syriac Christianity.” Hugoye 8.2
(July 2005).
—. “Spoken Words, Voiced
Silence: Biblical Women in Syriac Tradition.” Journal
of Early Christian Studies 9.1 (Spring 2001):
105–131.
Kamesar, A. “The Evaluation of
the Narrative Aggada in Greek and Latin Patristic
Literature.” Journal of Theological Studies 45.1
(April 1994): 37–71.
Kennedy, G. Aristotle, On
Rhetoric. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.
Koltun-Fromm, N. “Sexuality
and Holiness: Semitic-Christian and Jewish Conceptualization of
Sexual Behavior.” Vigiliae Christianae 54
(2000): 375–395.
Kronholm, T. Motifs from Genesis
1–11 in the Genuine Hymns of Ephrem the Syrian.
Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1978.
Lim, R. Public Disputation,
Power, and Social Order in Late Antiquity. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1995.
Murray, R. “Aramaic and Syriac
Dispute-Poems and Their Connections.” In Studia
Aramaica: New Sources and New Approaches, Journal of
Semitic Studies Supplement 4, ed. M. J. Geller, J. C.
Greenfield, and M. P. Weitzman. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1995, 157–187.
—. Symbols of Church and
Kingdom: A Study in Early Syriac Tradition. Picataway, NJ:
Gorgias Press, 2004.
Van Rompay, L. “The Christian
Syriac Tradition of Interpretation.” In Hebrew
Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation,
ed. M. Sæbø. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1996, 612–641.
Vermes, G. Scripture and
Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies. Leiden: Brill,
1973.
Weitzman, M. “From Judaism to
Christianity: The Syriac Version of the Hebrew Bible.” In
Jews among Pagans and Christians in the Roman Empire,
ed. J. Lieu, J. North, and T. Rajak. London: Routledge, 1992,
88–102.
Young, F. Biblical Exegesis and
the Formation of Christian Culture. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 2002.