In this article, I would like first to outline the different translations of the Bible in Syriac. Second, I will introduce biblical interpreters and their particularities of three different periods. Third, I will take a look at some interpretation features of the two prominent poet-theologians, namely, Ephrem the Syrian, and Jacob of Sarug. Finally, I will draw some conclusions.
In his book, The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions,1 Bruce M. Metzger surveying the ancient biblical versions and their significance observes: “Of the several ancient translations of both Old and New Testaments, the Syriac versions and the Latin versions are generally considered the most important, both for their own sakes and for their having become the bases of many daughter translations.”2 In considering the different versions of the Bible in Syriac, one can recognize the vitality and scholarship of the Syriac Church Fathers. In the first seven centuries of the Common Era (CE), they translated no less than seven versions of the Bible in Syriac, ranging from dynamic or sense-for-sense translations to literal or ‘mirror-like’ translations. While the Peshitta (
The Syriac Bible
Old Testament, translated from Hebrew: Peshitta
The origins of the Peshitta Old Testament are rather obscure. Upon studying the translation itself very closely, scholars have observed that the Peshitta Old Testament was not the work of a single translator but the work of several translators produced sometime between the first to third centuries of the CE. The translators mostly worked from the Hebrew text but not all the books were translated simultaneously or by the same person. For example, the Pentateuch and Chronicles were translated earlier than others and this resulted in a diverse style and a variety of different translation techniques. One striking feature, especially in earlier books, is the remarkable link between the Peshitta and the Jewish Targums. Also, in some books of the Prophets and that of Wisdom, the translators seem to have consulted the Septuagint to seek help with obscure or difficult passages in Hebrew.3
The links with the Jewish Targums suggest that the early translators of the Peshitta were probably of Jewish origin since the translation would have required a knowledge of the Hebrew language. Michael Wietzman even argued that the Old Testament Peshitta “was put together about 200 C.E. by a small Jewish community estranged from the Rabbinic majority, and the community eventually embraced Christianity, bringing the Old Testament Peshitta with them.”4 While the translators of certain books of the Peshitta were probably of Jewish rather than Christian background, and in other books the evidence perhaps points to Christian translators, there is no overall consensus regarding the religious identity of these translators.5
Old Testament, Translated from Greek: Syro-Hexapla
Between the fifth and the seventh centuries, the Christian Greek literature gained popularity and prestige in the eyes of the Syriac churches. Greek was the main cultural language of the Eastern Roman Empire and thus the theological controversies of the time were conducted primarily in Greek. Since the Syriac readers wanted to keep current with theological developments, many theological compositions were rendered from Greek into Syriac including almost all the main Greek Fathers. By the seventh century, the Syriac translators developed highly complex techniques of word-for-word or ‘mirror-like’ translation to show all the details of the Greek original in Syriac translation.6
An increasing interest in this highly sophisticated technique of word-for-word literal translation from the Greek stimulated the seventh-century Syriac biblical translation of the Syro-Hexapla for the Old Testament.
The Syrian Orthodox Patriarch Athanasius commissioned Paul—a Syriac Orthodox bishop of Tella and scholar working at the monastery of the Antonines at Ennaton just outside Alexandria, Egypt—to undertake the translation of the Syro-Hexapla for the Old Testament. Paul completed a Syriac translation of the Septuagint column of Origen’s Hexapla between 614 and 617. The Syriac writers call this version d-Shab‘in/
In the eighth century, another Syriac scholar and linguist named Jacob, the bishop of Edessa, revised certain books of the Old Testament with manuscripts from the Greek Septuagint and the Peshitta.
New Testament: Diatessaron
The earliest Syriac translation of the New Testament is the harmony of the four Gospels known as the Diatessaron or ewangeliyon da-mḥalṭe/
Old Syriac Gospels
After the Diatessaron, sometime between the late second century and early fourth century, came the Old Syriac version of the New Testament. In Syriac, this version bears the title ewangeliyon da-mparrshe/
The earliest-known Syriac version of the Old Syriac Gospels survived in two manuscripts: the Codex Curetonianus (named after its first editor William Cureton) and Codex Sinaiticus (named after St. Catherine’s Monastery where the manuscript belongs). Both manuscripts are assigned to the fifth century and contain only the Gospels. However, it is likely that the Old Syriac version included the other books of the New Testament as well.
The text of the Old Syriac differs significantly from that of the Peshitta in a number of ways. First, it is based on Greek manuscripts which differed from the Greek text underlying the Peshitta revision. Secondly, the style of the Old Syriac translation is freer. Thirdly, its archaic language in vocabulary and grammar shows earlier stages of the Syriac language. It is also noteworthy that the translator(s) adapted Old Testament quotations found in the Gospels to the wording of the Peshitta Old Testament instead of translating them into Syriac. This is a clear indication that the translator(s) felt that Peshitta version of the Old Testament had greater authority for their readers than the Greek New Testament.10
The Peshitta as the standard form of the Syriac New Testament
Biblical translator(s) revisions of the Old Syriac version in alignment with the Greek text resulted in what is now called the Peshitta (
The content, canonical divisions, and placement of scriptural books within the Peshitta version of the New Testament is somewhat unique. The Peshitta contains the books accepted by the Syriac Church as authoritative: the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of St. Paul, James, I Peter, and I John. As to the order of the books, in the early Peshitta manuscripts the Catholic Epistles (James, I Peter, and I John) come between the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of St. Paul. Not until the sixth century were 2 Peter, 2–3 John, Jude, and the Book of Revelation translated into Syriac.
The Peshitta version did not mark the end of New Testament translation activities. At least two other renditions appeared after it, though these were not meant for the dissemination of the Bible but were theologically and philologically motivated as described below.
The Philoxenian New Testament
The Philoxenian New Testament was a re-translation of the Peshitta, commissioned by the Syriac Orthodox Bishop Philoxenus of Mabbug. Thus, it is known as ‘Philoxenian’. In fact, the work was carried by Polycarp the chorepiscopus of Mabbug and was completed around the year 508. In his Commentary on the Prologue of John, Philoxenus explains why he commissioned the revision:
ܠܗܠܝܢ ܗܟܝܠ ܟܕ ܐܬܕܢܝܘ ܘܗ̇ܢܘܢ ܕܡܢ ܩܕܝܡ ܦܫܩܘ ܟܬܒ̈ܐ :ܐܢ ܒܨܒܝܢܗܘܢ ܘܐܢ ܠܐ ܡܢ ܝܕܥܬܐ : [ܚܛܘ ]ܒܣܓܝ̈ܐܬܐ .ܠܘ ܒܠܚܘܕ ܒܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܡܠܦ̈ܢ ܥܠ ܡܕܒܪܢܘܬܐ ܕܒܒܣܪ܆ ܐܠܐ ܐܦ ܒܗܠܝܢ ܕܫܪܟܐ ܕܟܬܝܒ̈ܢ ܡܛܠ ܗܠܝܢ ܪ̈ܥܝܢܐ ܐܚܪ̈ܢܐ .ܘܥܠ ܗܕܐ ܐܦ ܠܢ ܗ̣ܘܐ ܗܫܐ ܫܩܠܛܥܢܐ܆ ܕܬܘܒ ܡ̣ܢ ܕܪܝܫ ܢܬܦܫܩܘܢ ܡܢ ܝܘܢܝܐ ܠܣܘܪܝܝܐ܇ ܟܬܒ̈ܐ ܩܕܝܫ̈ܐ ܕܕܝܬܩܐ ܚܕܬܐ .12
Here is the English translation:
Thus when those of old applied themselves and translated the Scriptures, they erred in many things, whether intentionally or out of ignorance. These errors were not only in the things that are taught about the Economy in the flesh, but also in the rest of what is written about other doctrines. For this reason we have now taken the trouble to have the holy Scriptures of the New Testament translated anew from Greek into Syriac.
From this remark by Philoxenus, one can see that the theological controversies of the time and a desire for an accurate literal translation of the Greek New Testament informed this translation.
Unfortunately, no complete manuscript of the Philoxenian version is extant and much of this work has only survived in later quotations. It seems that the minor Catholic Epistles (2 Peter, 2–3 John, Jude) and the Book of the Revelation—absent from the Peshitta Canon—may belong to the Philoxenian New Testament. Though the Philoxenian version was more literal than the Peshitta, it was not as literally interpreted as the Harclean version that appeared a century later.
The Harclean New Testament
The Philoxenian version informed the Harclean; the final step in the long translation process of the Syriac New Testament. The revision completed by Thomas of Ḥarqel is known in Syriac as Ḥarqloyo/
While motivation for the Philoxenian was primarily theological, for the Harclean, it was philological. This is evidenced by every particle of the Greek original delivered in the translation. As Brock explains: “Thomas regularly strives to achieve a formal equivalence between the Greek and the Syriac text, with the result that it is possible for the modern scholar to reconstruct the Greek text which must have as the basis for his revision.”13 The result was a ‘mirror-like’ Syriac translation. Thomas even went a step further to include Greek variants in the margins.
The Harclean version enjoyed a wide circulation in the Syriac Orthodox Church and is often found in Lectionary manuscripts, instead of Peshitta. It was also employed as the basis for a harmony of the four Gospels covering the Passion narrative. The Harclean New Testament survived completely and covers the minor Catholic Epistles and the Book of the Revelation.
So, we have at least seven different versions of the Bible in Syriac, varying from dynamic renderings to literal, ‘mirror-like’ translations. These include in summary the following versions of the Old and New Testaments:14
Syriac Biblical Interpretation
Over the centuries, Syriac biblical interpreters have used a wide variety of genres to interpret biblical translations through the medium of poetic homilies such as mimre/
-
1) the second to fourth centuries,
-
2) the fifth to seventh centuries, and
-
3) the eighth to thirteenth centuries.
The Second to Fourth Centuries
I shall briefly introduce each broad period of biblical interpretation in the Syriac tradition drawing on what Jonathan Loopstra observed about the methodology and characteristics of its interpretation.
Since translation is an interpretation to a certain degree, the earliest sources for Syriac biblical interpretation are these translations of the Bible. These earliest Syriac translations contain themes and features in common with their contemporary Jewish interpretations of the Bible.
Although a number of early non-biblical works such as the Book of the Laws of the Countries,19 the Didascalia,20 the Odes of Solomon,21 and the Acts of Thomas22 contain references to the Syriac Bible, it is only in the fourth century that the Syriac biblical interpretation takes a definitive shape and character. The two prominent figures during this early period are Aphrahat23 and Ephrem.24 The former who is also called the ‘Persian Sage’ wrote from within the Persian Empire. The latter, called the ‘Harp of the Holy Spirit’ wrote from Nisibis on the edge of the Roman border. Both early Syriac Fathers were well-versed in the Holy Scriptures and both interpreted the Bible in light of the political, theological, and cultural issues facing their Christian communities.
In the second half of the fourth century, Aphrahat produced a series of 23 ‘Demonstrations’25 to remind his Christian community of the basics of the Christian life. Aphrahat’s Demonstrations composed in Syriac Kunstprosa reveal to us a self-professed “disciple of the sacred scriptures”26 whose approach and reading of the scriptures is characterized as virtuous. In the words of Jeff Childers, “good Bible interpretation requires nothing less than the total person—the inner and the outer, in community and before God. This, for Aphrahat, is what it means to be ‘a disciple of the sacred scriptures.’”27 Furthermore, what characterizes Aphrahat’s biblical interpretation is his insistence that the New Testament fulfils the Old Testament scriptures and the Gentiles have replaced the Jews as inheritors of the earlier promises of God. This is clearly stated in Demonstration 2, On Love:28
ܘܐܬܡܠܝܬ ܠܗܿ ܕܝܬܩܐ ܩܕܡܝܬܐ ܒܐ̱ܚܪܝܬܐ :
ܘܥܬܩ ܘܣܐܒ ܥܒܝ̈ܕܬܐ ܕܒܢܡܘܣܐ :
ܘܗܘ̈ܝ ܠܗܝܢ ܠܚܒܠܐ .
ܡܢ ܙܒܢܐ ܓܝܪ ܕܐܬܝܗܒܬ ܚܕܬܐ .
ܒܛܠܬ ܠܗܿ ܥܬܝܩܬܐ .
Here is the English translation:
The first Testament [i.e. the ‘Old Testament’] was fulfilled in the last [i.e. the ‘New Testament’],
and the actions that were (prescribed) in the Law aged and grew old,
and they came to corruption/destruction.
For from the time that the New (Testament) was given, the Old (Testament) failed/ceased.
Aphrahat quotes the Old Testament extensively, showing a surprisingly sophisticated use of typology. Throughout his writings, Aphrahat makes use of two key terms, rozo/
The earliest extant biblical commentaries in Syriac are those by Ephrem. They likely date from the last decade of his life in Edessa. It should be noted that during this time commentaries were generally written on one particular book at time. It was only from the eighth century onwards that the church fathers produced commentaries on the entire Bible.
The following commentary is usually attributed to Ephrem: Commentary on Genesis and Exodus.31 This has survived in Syriac in a single manuscript. In addition, part of the Commentary on the Diatessaron is attributed to him, though it is now argued that this work may have been written partially by the disciples of Ephrem.32 Other commentaries ascribed to Ephrem are only extant in Armenian, which include the Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Epistles.
In addition to Ephrem’s prose commentaries, we have received over four hundred of his madroshe (
The Fifth to Seventh Century
In the second period during the fifth to seventh centuries, the West Syriac biblical interpreters were increasingly influenced by methods of biblical interpretation found in the writings of Cyril of Alexandria, Severus of Antioch, John Chrysostom, and the Cappadocian Fathers. All the while, they were careful to preserve the tradition and heritage of Ephrem and other elements of early Syriac Christianity. Three authors in particular stand out: Jacob of Sarug (d. 521), Daniel of Salah (6th cent.) and Jacob of Edessa (d. 708).
Jacob of Sarug, the most prominent poet-theologian after Ephrem in the Syriac tradition, was a student in the School of Edessa who rejected the interpretation of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Instead, Jacob embraced the use of typology and symbology in his preferred genre—the poetic mimre. Although Jacob opposed Theodore’s method of biblical interpretation, there are signs of Theodore’s influence in Jacob’s writings.34
The second well-known interpreter, Daniel of Salah, is famous for his commentary on the Psalms.35 In his massive work on the Psalter, Daniel uses both historical and spiritual interpretation to expound the scriptures with excerpts from several writers, among them Ephrem and Aphrahat.
Our third writer, Jacob of Edessa, is a chief luminary in the area of Syriac biblical exegesis. His influence is critical for the development of West Syriac biblical interpretation in this period. Jacob was a linguist well-versed in Syriac and like many of his contemporaries, he was also very skilled in Greek. He also had some knowledge of Hebrew. Jacob of Edessa’s major revision of the Syriac Bible and methods of interpretation are expressed in a number of different genres, including letters, scholia, and commentaries.36
The Eighth to Thirteenth Centuries
West Syriac biblical interpretation of this later period reached its climax in the so-called renaissance of the eleventh through thirteenth centuries. This is a period of consolidation in the Western and Eastern Syriac biblical interpretation alike. Toward the end of this period, West Syriac writers and biblical commentators demonstrate an increasing openness to East Syriac exegesis. At least three authors emerge during this period: Mushe bar Kepha (d. 903), Dionysius bar Salibi (d. 1171), and Gregory bar ‘Ebroyo (d. 1286). The first of these prominent biblical interpreters is credited with a variety of writings, including works on liturgy, theology and biblical interpretation. He includes East Syriac exegesis which is probably due to his close proximity to the East Syriac communities in his native town of Takrit in northern Iraq and his desire to look beyond confessional boundaries. In his works, Bar Kepha includes a large number of excerpts from Greek and Syriac writers alike.37
The second prominent biblical commentator of this later period of revitalization is Dionysius bar Salibi. He is greatly influenced by Mushe bar Kepha. One major characteristic of his biblical interpretation is the use of the Syro-Hexapla rather than Peshitta for his commentary on Qohelet and for much of his commentary on Job. Another characteristic of Dionysius’s commentary is his division of biblical books into factual (su‘rono’ith/
Lastly, the Syriac polymath Gregory bar ‘Ebroyo represents the climax of the West Syriac biblical commentary tradition during the late Syriac renaissance. Among his many writings, his commentary on the entire Bible, Awṣar Roze/
Relating Secular and Religious Interpretations of the Bible
As one can see, there are numerous ways of reading and interpreting the Bible. However, there are two approaches worth mentioning. One sees the Bible from the point-view of faith while the other does not. The former approach is designated by Sebastian Brock of Oxford University as the religious and the latter as the secular. The secular includes both the academic and the purely literary approaches to the Bible without concern for any ideas of inspiration. Brock explains these two approaches of reading the biblical text:
By contrast, the former approach, which represents the tradition of reading Scripture within the Church, sees the Scriptures as in some way or other inspired, however this is understood—and there are a large number of ways of understanding what is meant by inspiration in this context. Basically what is involved here is a recognition of the activity of the Holy Spirit. This role of the Holy Spirit should not only be understood as being an active one with reference to the original authors, but also as being of importance in the course of the transmission of the biblical text, and above all (as will become evident from the emphasis given to it by the Syriac Fathers) in the way that the Scriptures are read (or heard) by the individual reader, for the reader too needs to be open to the Holy Spirit in the same sort of way that the original authors were.40
The fundamental difference between the two approaches of biblical reading and interpretation is that for the secular approach, there is in theory only one correct interpretation of any given biblical text or passage. It is a case of interpretations being either right or wrong: the Biblical text is univalent. For the religious approach, however, the biblical text has many layers and thereby is considered multivalent. In other words, there can be numerous meanings to a single passage; all of them are potentially acceptable, provided they are meaningful in a particular context. Moreover, it is very important that the reader is also accessible to the Holy Spirit and not knowingly or unknowingly trying to enforce his or her own belief upon the text. Brock continues:
Many different analogies have been offered for the different levels of meaning in the biblical text, but for our present purposes the most helpful is the analogy of the humanity and divinity of Christ: the outward humanity of Christ is there for everyone to see, but it requires the interior eye of faith to perceive his hidden divinity. The secular approach sees just the outward body, as it were, of the biblical text, but for the religious approach there is a completely different spiritual dimension as well.41
It is also essential that the two approaches of reading and interpreting the Bible, secular and religious, should not be considered as rivals: it is not a case of either/or. Instead, they are complementary: both are perfectly acceptable approaches but they function on different planes. It is also very possible for the one to be enlightening to the other. Conflict occurs when one approach claims that it is the only correct approach and no other one.
Ephrem’s and Jacob’s Poetic-Theological Approach to the Bible
Now with a general overview of the three broad periods of the biblical interpretation and two different approaches of reading the biblical text, I would like to explore the reading and interpretations of the poet-theologians Ephrem and Jacob.
The Syriac Church uses a deeply contemplative hermeneutical method based on a close reading of the Scripture, with specific attention to typology. This method seeks to understand recurrent mystical symbols through which God makes his revelations to the Church. For example, in his Hymns Against Heresies, Ephrem asserts in Syriac:
ܒܐܘܪܝܬܐ ܕܪܫܗ̇ ܡܘܫܐ
ܠܐܘܪܚܐ ܕܪ̈ܐܙܐ ܩܕܡ ܗ̇ܘ ܥܡܐ
ܕܒܟܠ ܐܘܪ̈ܚܢ ܦܗܐ ܗܘܐ
ܡܪܢ ܕܝܢ ܒܕܝ̈ܬܩܘܗܝ
ܓܡܪ ܣܡܗ ܠܫܒܝܠ ܩܘܫܬܐ
ܠܥܡ̈ܡܐ ܕܐܬܘ ܠܐܘܪܚܐ ܕܚܝ̣ܠܐ
ܪܕܘ ܒܗ̇ ܗܟܝܠ ܟܘܠ ܪ̈ܐܙܝܢ
ܒܗ̇ܝ ܐܘܪܚܐ ܕܕܪܫ ܡܘܫܐ
ܘܐܫܬܡܠܝܘ ܒܐܘܪܚܗ ܕܒܪܐ .42
It translates into English:
In the Torah Moses trod
the Way of the ‘mystic symbols’ before that People
who used to wander every each way.
But our Lord, in his testaments,
definitively established the path of Truth
for the peoples who came to the Way of Life.
all the ‘mystic symbols’ thus travelled
on that way Which Moses trod
and were brought to fulfillment in the Way of the Son.43
One of the characteristics of the early Syriac tradition is this use of symbology44 and typology to interpret the Bible primarily through the use of poetry. For Ephrem, poetry was a better medium than prose to interpret the Bible. For poetry is able to go beyond definitions (from the Latin word define, i.e., the limit or border) and thereby explore the inner meanings of a subject. As suggested by Sebastian Brock, this type of poetic theology refined by the poet-theologian Ephrem constitutes the ‘third lung’ of the biblical interpretation in the ancient church alongside the two other components of the Christian tradition—the Greek East and the Latin West.45
Sabino Chialà, a member of the Monastic Community of Bose (Monastero di Bose) in Italy, in his article “St Ephrem the Syrian as a Reader of Holy Scripture: A Witness of Plurality in Biblical Hermeneutics,”46 demonstrates this centrality of typology in the Syriac scriptural tradition. Chialà explains that the biblical text, beyond its apparent simplicity, is open to multiple meanings. Fourth century Syriac Father and Doctor of the Universal Church, Ephrem, is a creative interpreter of this complexity. In his Commentary on the Diatessaron, a harmony of the four Gospels, Ephrem says:
ܐܠܘ ܚܕ ܗܘܐ ܦܪܨܘܦܗܝܢ ܕܡ̈ܠܐ܆ ܡܬܪܓܡܢܐ ܗ̇ܘ ܩܕܡܝܐ ܡܫܟܚ ܗ̱ܘܐ ܠܗܝܢ .ܘܫܪܟܐ ܕܝܢ ܕܫܡܘ̈ܥܐ܇ ܠܐ ܥܡܠܐ ܐܝܬ ܗ̱ܘܐ ܠܗܘܢ ܒܒܥܬܐ ܘܠܐ ܢܝܚܐ ܒܫܟܚܬܐ .ܐܠܐ ܠܟܠ ܡܠܝ̈ ܡܪܢ ܨܘܪ̈ܬܐ ܐܝܬ ܠܗܝܢ .ܘܠܚܕܐ ܚܕܐ ܡܢ ܨܘܪ̈ܬܐ ܗܕܡ̈ܐ ܣܓܝ̈ܐܐ ܐܝܬ ܠܗ̇ .ܘܠܚܕ ܚܕ ܡܢܗܘܢ ܡܢ ܗܕܡ̈ܐ܆ ܛܒܥܐ ܘܐܣܟܝܡ ܢܦܫܗ ܐܝܬ ܠܗ .ܘܐ̱ܢܫ ܐܝܟ ܕܣܦܩ ܫܡܥ .ܘܐܝܟ ܕܡܬܝܗܒ ܠܗ ܡܬܪܓܡ .47
It translates into English:
If there only existed a single sense for the words of the Scripture, then the first commentator who came along would discover it, and other hearers would experience neither the labor of searching, nor the joy of discovery. Rather, each word of our Lord has its own form, and each form has its own members, and each member has its own character. And each individual person understands according to his capacity, and he interprets the passages as is granted to him.48
The concept of the multiplicity of meanings in Scripture, because of the complexity of the text and that of the reader’s situation, is again repeated in another passage of the Commentary on the Diatessaron where Ephrem addresses God:
ܡ̇ܢ ܡܘܦܐ ܠܡܕܪܟܘ ܣܟܐ ܕܫܟܚܬܗ ܕܚܕ ܦܬܓܡܟ .ܣܓܝ ܗ̱ܘ ܓܝܪ ܗ̇ܘ ܕܫܒܩܝܢܢ ܒܗ ܡ̱ܢ ܗ̇ܘ ܕܫܩܠܝܢܢ ܐܝܟ ܨܗ̈ܝܐ ܡܢ ܡܒܘܥܐ .ܣܓܝܐܝܢ ܐܢܘܢ ܦܪ̈ܨܘܦܐ ܕܡܠܬܗ ܐܝܟ ܣܓܝܐܘܘ [ܬ ]ܦܪ̈ܨܘܦܐ ܕܝܠܘ̈ܦܝܗ̇ .49
It translates into English:
Who is capable of comprehending the extent of what is to be discovered in a single utterance of yours? For we leave behind in it far more than we take away from it, like thirsty people drinking from a fountain. The facets of God’s word are far more numerous than the faces of those who learn from it.50
Chialà explains that both the biblical word and those who meditate upon it possess many ‘facets’. This gives rise to the variety of interpretations as two criteria of the hermeneutic fruitfulness of the biblical text: one intrinsic to the text, and the other extrinsic.51 Ephrem explains this double richness, intrinsic and extrinsic, by using two images, namely that of a fountain and a mirror. Regarding the intrinsic fruitfulness of the text, Ephrem employs the image of a fountain. He explains:
ܨܪܗ̇ ܠܡܠܬܗ ܒܫܘܦܪ̈ܐ ܣܓܝ̈ܐܐ .ܕܚܕ ܚܕ ܡܢ ܝܠܘ̈ܦܐ ܒܐܝܢܐ ܕܪܚܡ ܢܬܒܩܐ .ܘܛܡܪ ܒܗ̇ ܒܡܠܬܗ ܟܠ ܓܙܝ̈ܢ .ܕܚܕ ܚܕ ܡܢܢ ܡ̣ܢ ܐܝܟܐ ܕܗܡܣ ܒܗ ܢܥܬܪ ܡܢܗ̇ .ܦܬܓܡܗ ܐܝܠܢ ܚܝ̈ܐ ܗܘ .ܕܡܢ ܟܠ ܓܒܝ̈ܢ ܦܐܪ̈ܐ ܒܪ̈ܝܟܐ ܡܘܫܛ ܠܟ .ܘܐܝܟ ܟܐܦܐ ܗ̇ܝ ܕܒܡܕܒܪܐ ܐܬܬܪܥܬ .ܕܠܟܠ ܐ̱ܢܫ ܡܢ ܟܠ ܓܒ ܫܩܝܐ ܪܘܚܢܐ ܗܘܬ .ܡ [ܐ ]ܟܘܠܬܐ ܠܡ ܕܪܘܚܐ ܘܡܫܬܝܐ ܕܪܘܚܐ ܐܫܬܝܘ .52
It translates into English:
God depicted his word with many beauties, so that each of those who learn from it can examine that aspect of it which he likes. And God has hidden within his word all sorts of treasures, so that each of us can be enriched by it, from whatever aspect he meditates on. For God’s word is the Tree of Life [cf. Gen 2:9] which extends to you blessed fruits from every direction; it is like the Rock which was struck in the Wilderness [cf. Ex 17:6], which became a spiritual drink for everyone on all sides: “They ate the food of the Spirit and they drank the draft of the Spirit. [1 Cor 10:4]”.53
As to the second criterion, the fruitfulness extrinsic to the text, Ephrem employs the image of a mirror. This is beautifully expressed in his Letter to Publius.54 He addresses his correspondent:
ܫܦܝܪ ܕܝܢ ܥܒܕ ܐܢ̱ܬ .ܕܡܚܙܝܬܐ ܡܪܝܩܬܐ ܕܣܒܪܬܗ ܩܕܝܫܬܐ ܕܡܪܟ ܡܢ ܐܝ̈ܕܝܟ ܠܐ ܢܦܠܐ .
ܗ̇ܝ ܕܗ̣ܝ ܡܡܪܝܐ ܠܟܠ ܕܚܐܪ ܒܗ̇ .ܘܗ̣ܝ ܡܕܡܝܐ ܠܟܠ ܡ̇ܢ ܕܡܬܒܩܐ ܒܗ̇ .
ܘܟܕ ܗ̣ܝ ܟܝܢܗ̇ ܢܛܪܐ܆ ܘܫܘܚܠܦܐ ܠܐ ܡܩܒܠܐ܆
ܘܡܢ ܟܘ̈ܬܡܬܐ ܪܚܝܩܐ܆ ܘܡܢ ܨܐܘܬܐ ܡܒܪܝܐ܆
ܠܘܩܒܠ ܟܠ ܓܘ̈ܢܝܢ ܡܫܬܚܠܦܐ ܠܡܗܘܐ܆ ܟܕ ܠܐ ܡܫܬܚܠܦܐ .
ܠܘܩܒܠ ܚܘܪ̈ܐ ܐܟܘܬܗܘܢ ܗܘܝܐ .
ܘܠܘܩܒܠ ܐܘ̈ܟܡܐ ܒܕܡܘܬܗܘܢ ܫܚܡܐ .
ܘܠܘܩܒܠ ܣܘ̈ܡܩܐ ܐܟܘܬܗܘܢ ܣܘܡܩܐ .
ܘܠܘܩܒܠ ܫܦܝܪ̈ܐ ܐܟܘܬܗܘܢ ܫܦܪܐ .
ܘܠܘܩܒܠ ܣܢܝ̈ܐܐ ܐܟܘܬܗܘܢ ܡܟܐܪܐ .
It translates into English:
You would do well not to let fall from your hands the polished mirror of the holy Gospel of your Lord, which reproduces the image of everyone who gazes at it and the likeness of everyone who peers into it. While it keeps its own natural quality, undergoes no change, is devoid of any spots, and is free of any soiling, it changes its appearance before colors although it itself is not changed.
Before white things it becomes [white] like them.
Before black things, it becomes dark like them.
Before red things [it becomes] red like them.
Before beautiful things, it becomes beautiful like them and
before ugly things, it becomes hideous like them.55
From what is said above, the pages of Scripture not only reflect the face of God’s narrative and teaching, but also the face of the person who reads it.
Scripture then is the pearl of many reflections, the inexhaustible fountain, and the mirror that reflects ever-new images according to the person who is before it. The Scripture is a living and open world which none can seal or close. Neither the person who reads and contemplates it devotionally nor the clergy who explain it to the faithful can contain it.
Chialà here concludes his thoughts on St. Ephrem:
[T]his is the hermeneutical method by which our ‘theologian’ poet constructs his thoughts about God, to take up the triad mentioned at the beginning: exegete, theologian, and poet. Ephrem’s thought is dynamic, transfused through the power coming through his poetic verse… . We thus see all the coherence both of the formation of his thought and of its expression. This is a theology that leaves room for God’s and man’s complexity, as Scripture itself demands through its double fruitfulness, intrinsic (divine) and extrinsic (human).56
Having considered Ephrem’s approach to reading and interpreting the Bible, I would like now to turn to Jacob of Sarug, the most prominent poet-theologian after Ephrem in the Syriac tradition. His reputation is due to his magnificent number of sermons delivered in verse in dodecasyllabic meter bearing his name. The majority of his mimre, or verse homilies, are on biblical topics.
Jacob, like Ephrem before him, insists that one must draw near to the Scripture with an attitude of love. Otherwise, the Scripture will not yield itself to the reader and consequently, he or she will miss the inner beauty and discovery of the true meaning of the biblical text. Jacob says:
ܩܪܘܒ ܠܟܬܒܐ ܟܕ ܡܚܒ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܘܚܙܝ ܫܘܦܪܗ :
ܕܐܠܐ ܒܚܘܒܐ ܠܐ ܝܗܒ ܠܟ ܬܚܙܐ ܐܦܘ̈ܗ̱ܝ܀
ܒܠܥܕ ܚܘܒܐ ܐܢܗ̣ܘ ܕܬܩܪܐ ܠܐ ܝܬܪ ܐܢ̱ܬ :
ܕܚܘܒܐ ܗ̱ܘ ܬܪܥܐ ܕܒܗ ܥܐܠ ܐ̱ܢܫ ܨܝܕ ܣܘܟܠܐ܀
ܟܬܒܐ ܗܟܢ ܬܒܥ ܡܢܟ ܡܐ ܕܠܒܟܬܝܗ̱ܝ :
ܕܐܠܐ ܪܚܡܬܝܗ̱ܝ ܛܒ ܡܢ ܢܦܫܟ ܠܐ ܬܩܪܐ ܒܗ܀
ܘܐܡܪ ܨܐܕܝܟ ܕܐܢ ܬܩܪܐ ܒܝ ܡܐܝܢܐܝܬ :
ܐܦ ܠܝ ܡܐܢܐ ܒܟ ܐܓܠܐ ܠܟ ܥܠ ܣܘܟܠܝ̈܀
ܐܘ ܐܚܒܝܢܝ ܘܦܬܚ ܘܩܪܝ ܘܚܙܝ ܫܘܦܪ̈ܝ :
ܐܘ ܠܐ ܬܩܪܐ ܕܐܠܐ ܪܚܡܬܢܝ ܠܐ ܝܬܪ ܐܢ̱ܬ܀
ܗ̇ܘ ܪܥܝܢܐ ܕܐܝܬ ܠܟ ܨܐܕܝ ܡܐ ܕܠܒܟܬܢܝ :
ܥܒܕ ܐ̱ܢܐ ܠܝ ܘܐܢܐ ܠܘܬܟ ܡܐ ܕܦܓܥܬ ܒܟ܀
ܐܢ ܡܬܬܙܝܥ ܒܟ ܚܘܒܐ ܘܪܓܬܐ ܥܠ ܣܘ̈ܟܠܝ :
ܡܙܝܥ ܐ̱ܢܐ ܠܘܬܟ ܟܠܗܘܢ ܥܘܬܪ̈ܝ ܬܣܒ ܐܢܘܢ܀
It translates into English:
Approach Scripture with love—and you will see its beauty,
for if you don’t approach it with love, it will not allow you to see its face.
If you read it without love, you will not get any profit,
for love is the gate through which a person enters into its true understanding.
Scripture demands of you, when you take hold of it,
that, if you do not love it more than yourself, you should not read it.
It says to you, ‘If you read me reluctantly,
I too will be reluctant to reveal to you my meaning.
Either love me, then open me and read, and see my beauties,
or don’t read me, for you won’t get any benefit if you don’t love me.
To the person who shows love to me as he reads me, I will show love,
and if he asks me, I will give over to him all my treasures.57
Jacob, drawing on the Syriac ascetic and monastic tradition, imagines the Scriptures like an ocean and their spiritual meanings like pearls laying at the bottom of the ocean. Thus, the reader, like a spiritual merchant, must strip him or herself of worldly cares and dive into the ocean to excavate the pearls, that is to say, the spiritual meanings of the Scriptures. He explains:
ܟܬܒܘ̈ܗ̱ܝ ܕܒܪܐ ܠܝܡܐ ܕܡܝܢ ܘܒܓܘ ܝܡܐ :
ܫܕܝܐ ܘܟܣܝܐ ܡܪܓܢܝܬܐ ܡܢ ܬܓܪ̈ܐ܀
ܘܗ̇ܘ ܕܡܦܫܩ ܐܝܟ ܥܡܘܕܐ ܒܬܪܗ̇ ܢܚܬ :
ܓܐܫ ܥܘ̈ܡܩܐ ܘܡܣܩ ܥܡܗ ܡܪܓܢܝܬܐ܀
ܡܐ ܕܣܠܩܬ ܠܗ̇ ܗܐ ܡܬܝܒܠܐ ܥܠ ܬܓܪ̈ܐ :
ܘܟܠܗܘܢ ܡܐܬܪ ܝܬܪܝܢ ܡܢܗ̇ ܡܐ ܕܩܢܐܘܗ̇܀
ܐܝܟ ܥܡܘܕܐ ܢܚܬ ܗܘܢܐ ܠܓܘ ܩܪܝܢܐ :
ܕܢܣܩ ܥܡܗ ܡܠܬ ܚܝ̈ܐ ܡܪܓܢܝܬܐ܀
ܐܘ ܫܡܘ̈ܥܐ ܩܒܠܘܗ̇ ܠܡܠܬܐ ܐܝܟ ܬܓܪ̈ܐ :
ܘܝܬܪܘ ܘܥܬܪܘ ܟܠܟܘܢ ܡܢܗ̇ ܪܘܚܢܐܝܬ܀
It translates into English:
The Scriptures of the Son are like the ocean
and in this ocean there lies a pearl, hidden from merchants.
The person who expounds the text is like a diver who dives down in search of the pearl;
he gropes around in the depths, and brings up the pearl with him.
Once the pearl has come up, it is handed over to the merchants
and everyone can gain great benefit from it, once they have acquired it.
The intellect goes down, like the diver, into the scriptural reading
to bring up, with itself, the message of salvation, the pearl.
You who listen, receive this message, like merchants;
profit from it, all of you, and grow rich from it spiritually!58
Furthermore, Jacob like other church fathers, specifies prayer as a requirement for the reader or the spiritual seeker to obtain spiritual understanding and thereby benefit from reading the Scriptures. He writes:
ܟܠܗܝܢ ܡ̈ܠܐ ܕܐܝܬ ܒܟܬܒ̈ܐ ܢܘܗܪܐ ܡܠܝ̈ܢ :
ܒܗܝܢ ܡܪܝ ܐܢܗܪ ܠܡܡܠܠܘ ܒܬܗܪܐ ܫܪܒܟ܀
ܐܝܟ ܣܝܡ̈ܬܐ ܛܡܝܪܝܢ ܐ̱ܪ̈ܙܐ ܒܓܘ ܩܪ̈ܝܢܐ :
ܒܪ ܐܠܗܐ ܗܒ ܠܗ ܠܗܘܢܐ ܕܢܣܩ ܐܢܘܢ܀
ܥܘܬܪܐ ܪܒ ܕܐܝܬ ܒܟܬܒ̈ܝܗ̇ ܕܐܠܗܘܬܐ :
ܐܫܘܢܝ ܡܪܢ ܐܣܦܐ ܘܐܣܒ ܡ̣ܢ ܓܙܝܗ̈ܘܢ܀
ܡܠܬ ܚܝ̈ܐ ܡܪܓܢܝܬܐ ܗ̱ܝ ܠܕܪܚܡ ܠܗ̇ :
ܩܪܘܒ ܫܡܘܥܐ ܘܬܠܝܗ̇ ܒܐܕܢܟ ܘܐܨܛܒܬ ܒܗ̇܀
ܒܟܟܪܐ ܕܕܗܒܐ ܐܢ ܡܙܕܒܢܐ ܡܪܓܢܝܬܐ :
ܠܚܕܐ ܐܕܢܐ ܡܨܒܬܐ ܒܠܚܘܕ ܐܢ ܬܬܠܐ ܒܗ̇܀
ܡܠܬ ܚܝ̈ܐ ܛܒܐ ܗ̱ܝ ܡܢܗ̇ ܕܡܪܓܢܝܬܐ :
ܕܪ̈ܒܘ ܐܕܢܝ̈ܢ ܡܨܛܒ̈ܬܢ ܒܗ̇ ܘܠܐ ܟܕܘ ܠܗ̇܀
It translates into English:
All the words in the Scriptures are full of light.
May I become illumined, Lord, so that I may tell of your story with a sense of wonder.
Mysteries (or Symbols) are concealed within the Scriptures.
O Son of God, grant to the intellect the ability to bring up
great wealth that lies within the divine Scriptures.
Make me worthy, Lord, to gather in and partake of their treasures.
The word of salvation is a pearl for someone who loves it.
Approach, O hearer, hang it on your ear for your adornment!
An ordinary pearl, brought at a price, will only adorn one ear,
but the word of salvation (or Life) is far better than such a pearl
since ten thousand ears can be equally adorned by it!59
Throughout his verse homilies on biblical subjects, Jacob displays a wonderful gift of bringing out the riches that lie hidden beneath the surface of the biblical text.
Conclusion
The advice of the West Syriac Fathers such as Ephrem and Jacob is still relevant today for those who are considering the Bible from a perspective of faith as it was for the faithful more than a millennium ago. It is also important to note how much of the finest spiritual interpretation of the Bible by the Syriac Fathers is found in verse rather than prose. The two approaches of reading and interpreting the biblical text—the religious/spiritual and historical/secular—operate to different ends. Historical interpretation provides us with the outer meaning while spiritual interpretation directs us towards the inner meaning of the biblical text. The one should not rival the other, but rather complement and thereby enrich the tradition of reading and interpreting the Bible as a whole.
Selected Bibliography
Bedjan, Paul and Brock, Sebastian P., eds. Homilies of Mar Jacob of Sarug. 6 vols. (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2006).
Brock, Sebastian P. The Luminous Eye: The Spiritual World Vision of Saint Ephrem. 2nd ed. (Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian Publications, 1992).
Brock, Sebastian P. The Bible in the Syriac Tradition. 2nd ed. (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2006).
Brock, Sebastian P. “Three Syriac Fathers on Reading the Bible,” Sobornost incorporating Eastern Churches Review 33/1 (2011): 1–21.
De Halleux, André, ed. Philoxène de Mabbog. Commentaire du Prologue johannique (Ms. Br. Mus. Add. 14, 534) (CSCO 380; Louvain: Secretariat du CorpusSCO, 1977).
Leloir, Louis. Saint Éphrem: Commentaire de l’Évangile Concordant, Texte Syriaque (Manuscrit Chester Beatty 709) (Chester Beatty Monographs 8; Dublin: Hodges Figgis, 1963).
Loopstra, Jonathan. “The Syriac Bible and its Interpretation,” in Daniel King, ed. The Syriac World (New York: Routledge, 2019).
McVey, Kathleen E. Ephrem the Syrian: Hymns, Classics of Western Spirituality (New York: Paulist Press, 1989).
Van Rompay, Lucas. “The Christian Syriac Tradition of Interpretation,” in Magne Saebø, ed. Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996).
Weitzman, Michael P. The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
Bruce M. Metzger, The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001).
Ibid., 29.
Sebastian P. Brock, The Bible in the Syriac Tradition (Second edition; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2006), 23.
Michael P. Weitzman, The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 1.
Jonathan Loopstra, “The Syriac Bible and its Interpretation,” in Daniel King, ed., The Syriac World (New York: Routledge, 2019), 293.
Ibid., 294.
Brock, The Bible in the Syriac Tradition, 28.
Brock, The Bible in the Syriac Tradition, 31.
For the Syriac text with Latin translation, see Louis Leloir, Saint Éphrem: Commentaire de l’Évangile Concordant, Texte Syriaque (Manuscrit Chester Beatty 709) (Chester Beatty Monographs 8; Dublin: Hodges Figgis, 1963); Louis Leloir, Saint Éphrem: Commentaire de l’Évangile Concordant, Texte Syriaque (Manuscrit Chester Beatty 709), Folios Additionnels (Chester Beatty Monographs 8; Louvain: Peeters, 1990): for an English translation, see Carmel McCarthy, Saint Ephrem’s Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron: An English Translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709 with Introduction and Notes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993).
Brock, The Bible in the Syriac Tradition, 33.
Ibid., 34.
André de Halleux, ed., Philoxène de Mabbog. Commentaire du Prologue johannique (Ms. Br. Mus. Add. 14, 534) (CSCO 380; Louvain: Secretariat du CorpusSCO, 1977), 53.
Brock, The Bible in the Syriac Tradition, 37.
Ibid., 20.
For example, Jacob of Sarug (d. 521) and Narsai (d. 500) to name but two, have composed many metrical homilies (mostly of the dodecasyllabic meter) which deal with the biblical exegesis. Undoubtedly, Jacob has the largest corpus of metrical homilies in the Syriac tradition comprising over four hundred. There are nearly two hundred modern editions and translations of his works. The two well-known Syriac editions are: Paul Bedjan and Sebastian P. Brock, eds., Homilies of Mar Jacob of Sarug, 6 vols. (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2006); and Roger-Youssef Akhrass and Imad Syryany, eds., 160 Unpublished Homilies of Jacob of Serugh (Damascus: Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate, 2017).
Ephrem (d. 373) wrote a number of prose works such as commentaries on the biblical text but the majority of his poetic works were madroshe /
Sebastian P. Brock, Treasure-house of Mysteries: Explorations of the Sacred Text through Poetry in the Syriac Tradition (Popular Patristics Series 45; Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press), 2012.
Jonathan Loopstra, “The Syriac Bible and its Interpretation,” 296.
William Cureton, “Bardaisan—The Book of the Laws of Countries,” in Spicilegium syriacum, containing remains of Bardesan, Meliton, Ambrose, and Mara bar Serapion (London: Rivingtons, 1855).
Arthur Vööbus, ed., The Didascalia Apostolorum in Syriac (CSCO 401–402, 407–408; Louvain: Secretariat du CorpusSCO, 1979).
James H. Charlesworth, ed. and transl., The Odes of Solomon: The Syriac Texts (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977; repr. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982).
For the Syriac edition of the Acts of Thomas, see Paul Bedjan, ed., Acta martyrum et sanctorum syriace, vol. 3 (Paris: Harrasssowitz, 1982), 3–167; Albertus F. J. Klijn, The Acts of Thomas: Introduction, Text, and Commentary, 2nd ed. (Leiden: Brill, 2003). For an English translation, see Gunther Bornkamm, “Acts of Thomas – Introduction and Translation,” in Edgar Hennecke and Wilhelm Schneemelcher, eds., New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 2 (London: Luttersworth Press, 1965), 425–531.
Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage: Electronic Edition 2018, s.v. “Aphrahaṭ,” https://gedsh.bethmardutho.org/Aphrahat (last accessed 09 June 2022).
For good introductions on Ephrem, see Sebastian P. Brock, The Luminous Eye: The Spiritual World Vision of Saint Ephrem, 2nd ed. (Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian Publications, 1992); and Kathleen E. McVey, “Ephrem the Syrian,” in Philip Francis Esler, ed., The Early Christian World (London: Routledge, 2000), 1228–1250. Ephrem’s poems are now available in excellent editions (with German translations) by Dom Edmund Beck, published in the Louvain Corpus of Oriental Christian writers (CSCO). The fullest collection of Ephrem’s Syriac poetry in English translation is by Kathleen E. McVey, Ephrem the Syrian: Hymns, Classics of Western Spirituality (New York: Paulist Press, 1989). A small selection is published by Sebastian P. Brock, The Harp of the Spirit: Eighteen Poems of Saint Ephrem, 2nd ed. (Studies Supplementary to Sobornost; London: Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius, 1983). The small cycle of fifteen poems on Paradise are also translated by idem, St Ephrem the Syrian: Hymns on Paradise (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1990). For a comprehensive bibliography of St Ephrem’s writings, relevant studies and translations, see Kees den Biesen, Bibliography of St. Ephrem the Syrian (Giove: self-published, 2002).
For the Syriac edition of Aphrahat, see Dom Jean Parisot, ed., Aphraatis Sapientis Persae Demonstrationes (PS I, vols. 1–2; Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1894; 1907). For English translation of Aphrahat, see Adam Lehto, The Demonstrations of Aphrahat, the Persian Sage (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2010).
Demonstration 22.26 (I, 1049:3–4). I follow the traditional method of citing Aphrahat by volume, column, and line numbers of Parisot’s edition.
Jeff W. Childers, “Virtuous Reading: Aphrahat’s Approach to Scripture,” in George Kiraz, ed., Malphono w-Rabo d-Malphone: Studies in Honor of Sebastian P. Brock (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press 2008), 70.
Demonstration 2 (I, 60:10–14). Aphrahat’s statement clearly falls into the view of super-sessionist/replacement theology. However, there is a different view conveyed by the later Syriac tradition which expresses more strongly the spirit of co-existence as attested in the dialog poem (
It translates into English:
The Church says, The Son who was crucified has made me an heir together with you;
the House can hold us both, do not begrudge me, let us inherit together, I and you.
Finally, the Syriac Church today distances itself from the view of replacement theology and rather adheres to the spirit of ecumenism with Judaism and the view of joint inheritance.
The Syriac word
The Greek word for type, “
For an English translation of the Commentary on Genesis and Exodus, see Edward G. Mathews, Joseph P. Amar and Kathleen E. McVey, eds., St. Ephrem the Syrian: Selected Prose Works (The Fathers of the Church 91; Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1994).
Christian Lange, The Portrayal of Christ in the Syriac Commentary on the Diatessaron (CSCO 616; Louvain: Peeters, 2005).
While Ephrem wrote in a variety of genres, the majority of his work is in the form of madroshe, a Syriac genre of musical poetry or hymn, which he greatly employs for his biblical interpretation. On this, see Jeffrey Wickes, Bible and Poetry in Late Antique Mesopotamia: Ephrem’s Hymns on Faith (Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2019).
Loopstra, “The Syriac Bible and its Interpretation,” 301.
On the life and works of Daniel of Salah, see David G. K. Taylor, “Daniel of Ṣalaḥ,” in Brock et al., Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage: Electronic Edition, 2018, s.v. “Daniel of Ṣalaḥ,” https://gedsh.bethmardutho.org/Daniel-of-Salah (last accessed 09 June 2022).
Brock, The Bible in the Syriac Tradition, 76.
Loopstra, “The Syriac Bible and its Interpretation,” 304.
Ibid.
Hidemi Takahashi, Barhebraeus: A Bio-Bibliography (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2005).
Sebastian P. Brock, “Three Syriac Fathers on Reading the Bible,” Sobornost incorporating Eastern Churches Review 33/1 (2011): 6–21.
Ibid., 7.
Edmund Beck, ed. and transl., Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen contra Haereses (CSCO 169; Louvain: Durbecq, 1957), XXV:3.
English by Sidney H. Griffith, ‘Faith Adoring the Mystery’: Reading the Bible with St. Ephraem the Syrian (Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 1997), 20.
For Ephrem’s ‘symbolic thought’ or ‘symbolic theology’, see the excellent study by Kees den Biesen, Simple and Bold: Ephrem’s Art of Symbolic Thought (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2006).
Sebastian P. Brock, “The Syriac Orient: A Third ‘Lung’ for the Church?” Orientalia Christiana 71 (2005): 5–20.
Sabino Chialà, “St Ephrem the Syrian as a Reader of Holy Scripture: A Witness of Plurality in Biblical Hermeneutics,” Syriac Orthodox Patriarchal Journal 55 (2017): 39–49. In this section, I draw upon the line of thought of Sabino Chialà.
Leloir, Saint Éphrem: Commentaire de l’Évangile Concordant, Texte Syriaque (Manuscrit Chester Beatty 709), Folios Additionnels, 106.
English translation by Brock, The Bible in the Syriac Tradition, 66.
Leloir, Saint Éphrem: Commentaire de l’Évangile Concordant, Texte Syriaque (Manuscrit Chester Beatty 709), 16.
English translation by Brock, The Bible in the Syriac Tradition, 66.
Chialà, “St Ephrem the Syrian as a Reader of Holy Scripture,” 45.
Leloir, Saint Éphrem: Commentaire de l’Évangile Concordant, Texte Syriaque (Manuscrit Chester Beatty 709), 16–17.
English translation by Brock, The Bible in the Syriac Tradition, 66.
Sebastian P. Brock, “Ephrem’s Letter to Publius,” Le Muséon 89/3–4 (1976): 261–305.
English translation by Mathews, Amar, and McVey, 338.
Chialà, “St Ephrem the Syrian as a Reader of Holy Scripture,” 48.
For the Syriac edition, see Bedjan and Brock, Homilies of Mar Jacob of Sarug, vol. 4, 282. English translation by Brock, “Three Syriac Fathers on Reading the Bible,” 15.
Bedjan and Brock, Homilies of Mar Jacob of Sarug, vol. 1, 328. English translation by Brock, “Three Syriac Fathers on Reading the Bible,” 15–16.
Bedjan and Brock, Homilies of Mar Jacob of Sarug, vol. 2, 197. English translation by Brock, “Three Syriac Fathers on Reading the Bible,” 16.