1595: 
 
 
 ^m- 
 
 SSCaKifciKSliiiffiffiltfJia; 
 
 SS^P 
 
 ^f. 
 
 mmmm 
 
 wm^ 
 
CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 GIFT OF 
 
 Alfred C. Barnes 
 
Date Due 
 
 __SELap 
 
 >-w««p«rk 
 
 
 JP*^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 OBHBP 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 PRINTED IN 
 
 U. :>. A. 
 
 CQf 
 
 NO. 23293 
 
 Cornell University Library 
 BS2550.T2 A5 1895 
 
 Fraaments of the commentary of Eptirem 
 
 olln 
 
 I 
 
 924 029 334 442 
 
■J\S , 
 
FEAG-MENTS OF THE COMMENTAEY 
 
 OP 
 
 EPHEEM SYEUS 
 
 UPON THE 
 
 DIATESSAEON. 
 
EonDon: C; J. CLAY and SONS, 
 
 CAMBEIDGE UNIVEBSITY PEESS WAEEHOUSE, 
 
 AVE MAEIA LANE. 
 
 ®IasB0fa: 263, AEGTLE STREET. 
 
 letpjifl: E. A. BBflCKHAUS. 
 &,eis gotft: MAOMILLAN AND CO. 
 
FEAGMENTS OF THE COMMENTAEY 
 
 OF 
 
 EPHEEM SYEUS 
 
 UPON THE 
 
 DIATESSAEON 
 
 BY 
 
 J. RENDEL HARRIS, M.A., D. Litt. (Dubl.), 
 
 FELLOW OF OLAKE COLLEOE, CAMBRIDGE. 
 
 *^'. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 0. J. CLAY AND SONS, 
 
 CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE, 
 
 AVE MAEIA LANE. 
 
 - 1895 
 
 s 
 
J^3 
 
 CamfiriUp: 
 
 FEINTED BY J. AND 0. T. CLAY, 
 AT THE UNIVEBSITY PEBSS. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 In a recent article in the Contemporary Review (August, 1895) 
 I have shown that there is a close and constant dependence of the 
 later Syriac commentators upon the Commentary which Ephrem 
 Syrus made upon Tatian's Diatessaron ; and I have found upon a 
 further examination of these writers that it is possible to restore, 
 sometimes exactly and sometimes approximately, large portions of 
 the lost Syriac text of Ephrem, of which, up to the present, no 
 fragment has been produced, and of which no representative is 
 extant except the Armenian translation published by the Venetian 
 fathers. As the recovery of these portions of the lost text not 
 only elucidates the often doubtful meaning of the Armenian 
 version, but also throws much light upon the history and fortunes 
 of the composition, I have thought it worth while to commit the 
 matter to the press in the hope that it will not be valueless to the 
 critic ■ even if a complete copy of the lost Syriac work should 
 ultimately be recovered. 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029334442 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Introduction 2 23 
 
 Extracts from the Commentary of Ephrem .... 24 90 
 
 Concluding Remarks 91 iqq 
 
CORRIGENDUM. 
 P. 18 1. 29, for «___oealAvlr^ read ,__Ooa.av.r^ 
 
INTKODUCTION. 
 
 The Commentary of Ephrem Syrus has, for various reasons, 
 hardly met with the welcome and the elucidation which so famous 
 a work deserves. Probably this is due, on the one side, to the 
 fact that it was, until the present pages were written, extant only 
 in Armenian, and the paucity of scholars who are acquainted with 
 that language has reacted upon the subject, and caused a some- 
 what cold treatment of the book itself; but it is also due, in part, 
 to the odium anti-theologicum which was provoked by the appear- 
 ance of a work which was supposed, rightly or wrongly, to have an 
 important bearing upon the history of the Canon ; so that in 
 some quarters there have been muttered rumours that the work 
 was not rightly ascribed to the great Syrian father whose name it 
 bears, while in other quarters of the critical world, especially those 
 which lie most nearly adjacent to the city of Tubingen, it has been 
 treated with a silence that must be, to the looker-on, who pro- 
 verbially has the best view of the game, very significant. 
 
 Now it is unfortunate that this should be the case ; unfortu- 
 nate, I mean, that so many persons (myself amongst the number) 
 are ignorant of Armenian, and that some persons (amongst whom 
 I sincerely hope not to be included) limit their interest in a great 
 work by the boundary of their theological or anti-theological pre- 
 dilections ; and it is the more to be regretted, because the interest 
 of the work does not lie primarily either in the fact that it is in 
 Armenian, or in its possible bearing upon the evolution of the 
 second century Gospels. Ephrem, himself, is a theological star of 
 the first magnitude, and even if he should happen to be one of 
 the worthiest representatives of Catholic orthodoxy, his windows 
 always overlook the fields of the early unorthodox teachers, whom 
 the Church has successively banned, but without the knowledge 
 of whom the Church Historian cannot construct the map of the 
 
 H, D, 1 
 
2 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Ecclesiastical Empire or interpret the riddles which occur so 
 constantly in the History of Dogma. 
 
 Not only so, but the stones which he throws at the Docetists, 
 at Marcion, at Bardesanes and others are usually of the nature of 
 replies ; and the stones which had originally been thrown at his 
 own party can often be found lying under his windows. He loves 
 repartee, but as repartee requires, to make it intelligible, the 
 preliminary remarks of the objector, it will be found that often, 
 in Ephrem's pages, there can be recognized statements which were 
 taken ex ore duhitantium, or have been extracted directly from 
 heretical works. Marcion has, indeed, perished, but some Mar- 
 cionite flies (often large ones) are in Ephrem's amber. A careful 
 critic can often separate the two. 
 
 For example, in Ephrem's comment on Luke xi. 27 (ed. 
 Mosinger, p. 122), the writer expressly tells us that he is quoting 
 Marcion, and the margin of the MS. tells us that 'all this was 
 said by Marcion.' The only question then is, how much is rightly 
 to be included under the marks of quotation. Apparently we 
 may isolate the following words : 
 
 ' Blessed shall be the womb that bare thee.' Marcion says " By 
 these words they only tempted him to see whether he was bom 
 in reality. And where it is said, ' Lo ! thy mother and thy 
 brethren seek thee ' the same thing is signified. And further he 
 gave them his body to eat." 
 
 The argument is that the body is a phantasm and the birth 
 not real. For our Lord did not acknowledge the suggested rela- 
 tionships to mother and brethren. And Ephrem's reply is that if 
 our Lord had wished to deny his nativity and human nature, he 
 would not afterwards have claimed fraternity with disciples who 
 were but men. And by a happy retort he compares the verse in 
 which our Lord might be supposed to say ' "Why callest thou me 
 conceived and bom ' with that other much disputed text ' Why 
 callest thou me good,' from which the Marcionites were in the 
 habit of arguing and where Ephrem and others shew great skill 
 in refuting them. 
 
 In another passage he is arguing with those who held with 
 Marcion that Christ appeared suddenly in the synagogue at 
 Nazareth, or as Tertullian puts it, that he came de caelo in 
 synagogam. The dispute in such cases did not turn on the 
 question of the genuineness of the portions of the Gospel which 
 
INTRODUCTION. 3 
 
 deal with the Nativity, for the Marcionite had no such account in 
 his gospel ; but it turned upon the words ' he went, as his custom 
 was, into the synagogue.' And it was argued, not improperly, by 
 the opponents of Marcion that these words were inconsistent with 
 the theory of a sudden lapse from heaven. Accordingly, as I have 
 elsewhere suggested^ the text of the Gospel at this point shews 
 signs of having been tampered with in certain copies with a view 
 to meeting the difficulty, either by getting rid of the ' custom ' or 
 by proving it to refer to other people or by erasing the words 
 ' where he had been brought up.' Now it is interesting to find 
 that the very words of Marcion on this point are preserved to us by 
 Ephrem. And it appears that Marcion objects to this disputed 
 word ' consuetude' The passage is as follows (Mosinger, p. 128) : 
 
 Matt. xui. 54. He cavne into his own city and taught them in 
 their synagogues.... This was written to confound the Marcionites : 
 [because, that is, by teaching in his native place and by teaching 
 in their synagogues the scripture implies previous residence and 
 habitual teaching.]... Luke iv. 16. After these things he entered 
 into their synagogue, as his custom was, on the Sabbath-day. [Here 
 Marcion is supposed to intervene;] whence arises the custom to 
 him who had only just arrived ? He had but just come into 
 Galilee: nor had he [even on the orthodox shewing] begun to 
 preach outside the synagogue, [in which case the custom of preach- 
 ing would have been established] but he began in the synagogue, 
 (and we must either admit) as their worship requires, that he 
 preached to them concerning their God, [the creator of the world] 
 or else he would have had to preach outside the synagogues. 
 [But if he preached about their God to them then this must have 
 been what provoked their anger; nothing had passed between 
 them before], and his visit to Bethsaida [so, according to Marcion, 
 and nat Nazareth] was only marked on their side by the sugges- 
 tion that the physician should heal himself. This is not sufficient 
 to explain their anger and their desire to throw him from the 
 rock. [We must, therefore, allow that he had said things to them 
 about their God, which provoked them, and this must have been 
 the first occasion upon which such things were said.] 
 
 To which Ephrem replies (i) that if Christ had been in the 
 habit of preaching against the God of the Old Testament, traces 
 of it would be found elsewhere in the Gospel ; (ii) that the very 
 ' A Study of Codex Bezae, p. 232. 
 
 1—2 
 
4 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 words which he used about a prophet being without honour in his 
 own country imply his previous residence among them. 
 
 In this way we get glimpses of the character of the disputes 
 between the Marcionite and the Catholic; we can reconstruct 
 something of the argument, and we can collect the leading passages 
 around which the discussion raged. Indeed it will often be found 
 that the texts which Ephrem treats with the greatest fulness and 
 variety are those which relate to the burning questions of the 
 generation or century preceding his own; and the only diificulty 
 lies in determining when he is speaking in his own person, and 
 not quoting or personating a heretic. 
 
 Another case which he discusses is that in which the physical 
 body of Christ was denied, for it appears that he enters into an 
 argument with those who held that Christ's body was not natural, 
 but had descended from heaven, perhaps by passing through the 
 Virgin, as water through a tube, according to some Valentinian 
 Gnostics. It is evident from Ephrem that such persons had made 
 use of the expression in the Gospel of John, ' no man hath ascended 
 into heaven except him that descended from heaven ' ; from which 
 they concluded that Christ descended o-a/ianKwi} from above. 
 And they seem to have confirmed this belief, in Syria, by the 
 use of the primitive translation of the Gospel of John into Syriac, 
 in which we are told (John i. 14) that ' the Word became (or was) 
 a body and dwelt among us.' To these Ephrem replies' 
 
 'You are not to say that the body of Christ descended from 
 heaven... but it was Gabriel who descended from heaven... and 
 therefore it says ' He that descended from heaven.' ' 
 
 And I think we can see the difficulty which arose in the inter- 
 pretation of the first chapter of John by the naive admission of 
 another Syriac commentator", to whom we shall presently refer, 
 and who is perhaps retailing an actual remark of Ephrem, that the 
 original reading was ' body ' but it was changed to ' flesh ' in order 
 that people might not suppose that the body descended from 
 heaven". 
 
 One other instance shall be given of the importance of the 
 Ephrem Commentary for a knowledge of the early heresies. I 
 
 1 Mosinger, p. 187. 
 ^ Isho'dad of Merv. 
 
 " How oharaoteristio was this translation of o-i/jf by ' body ' may be seen by 
 studying the text of the Old Syriao Version of the Gospels. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 5 
 
 have pointed out elsewhere' the meaning of the curious passage" 
 in which Ephrem says that the words in Daniel where ' a stone is 
 cut out without hands/ are not the same in meaning as the 
 passage ' Look to the mountain and the valley,' in which case he 
 intimates the male and the female. But here he says 'without 
 hands.' 
 
 The explanation of our Lord's birth from a virgin by means 
 of Daniel's stone without hands is, of course, well known, but 
 Ephrem reveals to us the counter text of the Adoptionist who 
 objects to the stone without hands a stone hewn out of a mountain 
 and a valley ; he is quoting Isaiah li. 1 as a reference to the Syriac 
 text with Ephrem's comment on it will shew, and hence concludes 
 for a natural birth by the male and the female'. 
 
 It is in this way that we are able to restore the watchwords of 
 early battlefields, and no book will help us to so many of these as 
 Ephrem's Commentary on the Diatessaron. For the study of 
 Marcionism, Gnosticism or Adoptionism, it is of very great value ; 
 and deserves, therefore, an edited text and a scientific commen- 
 tary. 
 
 Not less important is the volume for the light that it throws 
 upon the Old Syriac text both of the distinct Gospels and of the 
 Diatessaron. The textual critic will read his Ephrem side by side 
 with the oldest copies of the Syriac text. For if the Ephrem 
 Commentary often throws light upon the early condition of the 
 Syriac text, conversely the early Syriac texts (notably the Lewis 
 text) often throw light upon Ephrem. The recurrence, for example, 
 of some curious word or expression will often shew what was the 
 reading most familiar to Ephrem, even where the verse itself may 
 not be actually quoted, or where, when it was actually quoted, the 
 influence of the later Vulgate text has caused a superficial correc- 
 tion. 
 
 For example, in Matt. i. 25, Ephrem's copy of the Diatessaron 
 read ' Sancte habitabat cum ea ' as in the Curetonian. Six times 
 Ephrem quotes it directly ; but the diffusion of the reading is such 
 that not only does it influence his comments in other places such 
 
 1 Contemp. Rev. Nov. 1894, p. 669. 
 
 » Mosinger, p. 22. 
 
 ' Another Adoptionist error is corrected on p. 27, wHere we are told that the 
 Scripture does not say ' a Saviour who is to become the Lord's Christ, but a 
 Saviour who already is the Lord's Christ.' 
 
6 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 as (p. 21) the passage where he says that Joseph was so gentle as 
 not to expel her from the house, sed cum ea habitaret ; but it even 
 turns up in the objection made by an ideal Adoptionist inter- 
 locutor who says (p. 26) 
 
 Nonne ergo conjugium sanctum est, testante 
 
 Apostolo, Thorus eorum sanctum est' ? 
 
 This instance is the more curious, since the Cureton reading 
 was probably intended as an Anti- Adoptionist correction. But 
 the fact is that the reading must have acquired great prevalence, 
 for we find traces of it in later Syriac commentators also. 
 
 Or take the passage to which we draw attention on p. 34 
 (Luke ii. 34), in which from the repeated word duUtare we are 
 able to restore the text of Tatian in a place where a later reviser 
 of Ephrem has substituted a reading more in accordance with the 
 Greek. 
 
 A very interesting case will be found in the account of our 
 Lord's healing of the leper", where Ephrem comments as follows : 
 
 Dominus duo pro his duobus ei ostendit, reprehensionem, cvm. 
 ei irasceretur, et misericordiam, cum sanaret. Quia dixit. Si vis, 
 
 iratus est Propterea Dominus per indignationem monstravit 
 
 se non ex personarum acceptione sanare 
 
 Quare Dominus propter has cogitationes ei iratus est et deinceps 
 
 ei praecepit Sed et animadverte non ei, sed leprae Christum 
 
 iratv/m esse. 
 
 The continual play upon the words iratum esse shews that 
 the text used by Ephrem had this expression. This is the more 
 important because, as far as I know, up to the present time, the 
 only evidence for such a reading was the Western text (with D, 
 d, a ff'') in Mark i. 41, where Codex Bezae has opyiaOek. The 
 diffusion of this reading in Sjriac as well as in Greco-Latin texts 
 is therefore demonstrated. 
 
 Or turn to the passage (Luke i. 6) where Zachary and Elisa- 
 beth are said' to be ' Immaculati in omni regione sua.' A reference 
 to the foot-note of Mosinger shews that the text should have 
 been printed 'Immaculati in omni habitatione sua'; and a few 
 pages further on the same reading is betrayed where Ephrem says 
 
 ' From the fact that Ephrem does not directly reply to this ingenious objection, 
 one is almost tempted to suspect that it is the gloss of an Adoptionist reader. 
 ' Mosinger, p. 144. > Mosinger, p. 7. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 7 
 
 that it is not proper to criticise persons like Zachaiy and Elisabeth 
 who are said to have been immaculate ' in omni vitae conditione,' 
 for here again the editor notes that one of his copies reads 'in 
 omni habitatione.' There can be little doubt as to the correct 
 reading ; but here the Sinai text comes to our aid, and solves the 
 problem as to what had been puzzling the Armenian scribes, by 
 telling us that Zachary and Elisabeth were ' without blame in all 
 their conversation ' ; the word which we render ' conversation,' 
 T^XSaCL^, has been referred to its root which means to ' dwell ' or 
 'inhabit.' We have thus an agreement between the Old Syriac 
 text and that of Tatian in a very free and forcible transla- 
 tion. 
 
 But we need not say more on this point, except to add that 
 what is true of Ephrem is also true of later Syriac commentators, 
 especially of those who derive from him. Their comments as well 
 as their texts are to be used in the determination of Old Syriac 
 readings, and a trained ear will often catch the refrain of such 
 readings and be able to separate them from the rest of the passage 
 in which they may be imbedded. 
 
 It will, therefore, be admitted that the Ephrem commentary 
 deserves critical editing, with a view to determine something 
 more than the pre-existence, early diffusion and harmonisation of 
 the four Gospels. And this is rendered the more necessary 
 because the Editor of the Latin translation has not given us a 
 scientific text; of the two copies, A and B, which he uses, one 
 is an editorial recension made by a certain Nerses, in which 
 difficulties have been conjecturally got rid of, and texts specu- 
 latively improved in such a way that we can only describe the 
 work as in certain passages de-Ephremized. It would have been 
 better to have printed the text merely from the copy A, without 
 any reference to the other copy, than to combine the two, often so 
 as to produce a text of which we can only say that, whatever 
 it is, it is not the text of Ephrem. The first step then in 
 studying the work is to purify it of some of the editorial 
 B-readings and of all the composite A + B readings. I am 
 sorry that my ignorance of Armenian does not permit me to 
 undertake this correction'. But, if I cannot do this, I am glad 
 
 1 It will also be necessary to correct a great many of the editor's references to 
 the Old Testament which are demonstrated to be incorrect, as soon as we refer to 
 the Syriac Bible, as well as to correct such lacunae of reference as in the passage 
 
8 INTKODUCTION. 
 
 to say that my researches in another direction have been very 
 fruitful. I have set to work to see how much of the original 
 Syriac text may be extant in the shape of Catenae or Com- 
 mentaries on the Gospel in the Syriac tongue : and the present 
 volume will shew that a great deal is to be gathered from the 
 Syriac commentators both for the knowledge of the Diatessaron 
 and of Ephrem's comment upon it. 
 
 Of the writers upon whom I depend those to whom I chiefly 
 refer are Isho'dad of Merv who flourished about A.D. 850, Moses 
 Bar-Kepha his contemporary, Bar-Salibi and Bar-Hebraeus, who 
 belong respectively to the 12th and 13th centuries. And to them 
 must be added Ephrem himself, as a source for the original 
 Syriac of the commentary. For it will be found that he has 
 often incorporated portions of his own hymns, which appear in 
 the Armenian text in the disguise of unsuspected prose^. 
 
 Of the other writers quoted, Isho'dad is a Nestorian, Bar-Kepha 
 and the two later doctors are Monophysites, so that we may say 
 that the whole Syrian church has laid its hands on Ephrem's 
 commentary. The only thing we may have to be careful about 
 will be the handling of cases where Ephrem's language might 
 seem to favour unduly one or other of the great parties in the 
 Syrian church. In such passages the text as transcribed by a 
 learned doctor might easily become suspect. 
 
 Of these writers, unfortunately, none is at present in print, 
 except in part Bar-Hebraeus ; his commentary on Matthew in the 
 work called the Storehouse of Mysteries was edited by Spanuth 
 in 1879 ; and that on the Gospel of John in 1878 by Schwartz. 
 
 noted above from Is. li. 1, where Mosinger says, ' quo loco, nescio. The following 
 are some of the corrections to be made. 
 
 p. 63, note 4, for Fartasse ex Is. xlix. 10 read Amos viii. 11. 
 
 p. 122, 1. 11, for Marc. i. 32 read Jer. xv.- 19. 
 
 p. 138, note 1, where M. refers the reading ' qui blasphemat Deum, crucifigatur ' 
 to Lev. xxiv. 16 correct to DeUt. xxi. 23. 
 
 p. 193, for cf. Is. liv. 12, vel Ez. Hi. 9 read Amos vii. 8. 
 
 p. 210, note 4, for Gf. Is. Uii. 11 read Is. Hi. 15. 
 
 p. 228 and p. 280, where the words ' Tu dixisti, Mundns per gratiam aedifioa- 
 bitur ' are either quoted or implied, make the reference to Ps. Ixxxiii. 8, which in 
 English appears as ' I said, MerCy shall be built up for ever.' 
 
 I do not wish to criticize Mosinger severely: some of these passages were difScult 
 to identify. Even if his edition is inadequate, he is a great public benefactor to 
 whom we are all deeply indebted. 
 
 ^ An instance may be found on p. 28. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 9 
 
 For Bar-Salibi we must also turn to the MSS. : for I do not 
 know that any portion of the commentary on the Gospels is in 
 print, over and above the extracts given by Assemani. A large 
 part of the text was however given in English and Latin trans- 
 lations by Dudley Loftus in the two valuable little books which he 
 published at Dublin in 1672 and 1695'; and his MS. translations 
 of the remainder into Latin are preserved in the Bodleian 
 Library^ 
 
 For Moses Bar-Kepha I have consulted a fragmentary MS. 
 containing his commentary on Matthew in the British Museum 
 (Cod. Add. 17,274). Wright's description of the MS. I relegate to 
 a note'. The importance of Moses Bar-Kepha in this connection 
 lies in the fact that he knows the Ephrem commentary, which he 
 sometimes expressly refers to, and that he imitates it; and 
 further his commentary is one of the principal sources of Bar- 
 Salibi, who expressly names him in his preface as one of the 
 authors whom he has laid under contribution. Anything, there- 
 fore, in which the two writers agree, must be read as from the 
 pen of Moses Bar-Kepha, and not from Bar-Salibi. Probably it 
 will be found that Moses, in his turn, derives many of his com- 
 ments from earlier sources. 
 
 ' The Expoxitimi of Dionysius Syrus, written above 900 years since, on the 
 EvangeUst St Mark, translated by D. L. (Dublin, 1672) ; A clear and learned Expli- 
 cation of the History of our Blessed Saviour Jesvs Christ,... \>y Dionysius Syrus ;... 
 faithfully translated by Dudley Loftus, Dublin, 1695. 
 
 2 Fell MSS., Nos. 6 and 7. 
 
 3 Wright, Gat. Syr. MSS., ii. 620. A volume measuring about 14| in. by 8J, 
 made up of portions of several paper MSS. It consists of 260 leaves, a great many of 
 which are more or less torn. The quires are signed with letters. Each page is divided 
 into two columns. Though written by several hands, the character throughout is 
 a good regular cursive of the xith or xiith cent. The contents are as follows : 
 
 (1) Portions of a Commentary upon the Book of Genesis by Moses bar Eipha... 
 
 (2) Portions of a Commentary on the Gospels, with a long introduction, by 
 Moses bar Eipha : 
 
 (a) Introduction, fol. 26 a. 
 
 (6) Commentary on St Matthew. Pol. 50 a (should be 48 a). 
 
 (c) A single fragnient of the Commentary on St Luke. Fol. 152 a. 
 
 (3) Portions of a Commentary on the Gospel of St Matthew, by some other 
 author. Fol. 121 a. 
 
 (4) Portions of a Commentary on the Pauline Epistles by Moses bar Kipha : 
 (a) On the Epistle to the Bomans. Fol. 153 a. 
 
 (6) On the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Title, fol. 190 6. 
 
 (c) On the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Fol. 239 a. 
 
 (d) A single fragment of the Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. 
 
10 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The proof of Bar-Kepha's acquaintance with the Ephrem 
 commentary is, as we have said, (i) direct, for in discussing the 
 question whether Judas partook of the Eucharist or not, he 
 gives Ephrem's opinion as to the washing off the sanctification 
 of the bread by dipping it in water; and says it is from his 
 Exposition of the Gospel ; (ii) there is an indirect proof of his 
 dependence in his imitation of the opening sentences of Ephrem, 
 as will be seen by a reference to our collection of extracts at p. 24. 
 Bar-Kepha also, in his introductory chapters, appears to be the 
 source of Bar-Salibi, and the references to the Diatessaron are, 
 therefore, important for himself and for later writers. It will 
 be found that he carefully distinguishes Tatian's Diatessaron from 
 that of Ammonius. 
 
 Amongst the works to which Bar-Kepha refers, there is one 
 which seems to be older than Ephrem, and to have been used by 
 him, and which may perhaps be of great antiquity. The reader 
 of Ephrem will have observed that there is often a strain of in- 
 terpretation which consists in a very simple allegorisation of the 
 Gospel and its contained parables. Such glosses as (Mos. p. 166) 
 occur in the interpretation of the Planting of the Vineyard, 
 
 Colonus = lex, 
 
 Tres anni = tempus quo eis ostendit, se esse Salvatorem, 
 
 and those which we have quoted from p. 192, seem to belong 
 to a simpler and more archaic hand than that of Ephrem, and 
 they occur in all the commentators. 
 
 Bar-Kepha says expressly in one place that these very 
 elementary comments come from a book which he calls 
 
 or the Succinct Exposition of Matthew. 
 
 It is, as we have said, quite possible that we have here 
 the traces of some very early document. At all events nothing 
 could be more simple or childlike than the commentary which 
 Bar-Kepha quotes, and to which other commentators evidently 
 allude. 
 
 Of Isho'dad nothing has been published beyond a few refer- 
 ences by my American friends Dr Hall and Prof. Gottheil; the 
 copy from which I have worked is Cod. Add. 1973 in the Cam- 
 bridge University Library : and it is from this source that most 
 
INTRODUCTION. 11 
 
 of my identifications have been made. It is a late paper MS. 
 in the Nestorian character, consisting of 323 leaves; originally 
 there were more, but a number of leaves have disappeared at 
 the beginning of the book, which is a commentary on the Penta- 
 teuch, and I think a single leaf has gone at the end. Possibly 
 there may be one or two lacunae. The Gospels begin as follows : 
 Matthew on f. 13 r. (the previous leaves being occupied by the 
 remains of the Commentary on the Pentateuch), Mark on f. 145 v., 
 Luke on £ 169 v., and John on £ 237 r. (ending on £ 323 v.). 
 As might be expected, the Commentary is largely of the nature 
 of Catena, and the authors quoted are sometimes (but not often) 
 indicated by a rubricated name and by a rubric punctuation. The 
 interest of the Commentary lies chiefly in the wealth of unknown 
 or imperfectly known authors whom it quotes: of these the 
 principal are Ephrem and Theodore of Mopsuestia (the latter 
 under the name of ' the Interpreter '); but beyond these, and some 
 of the conventional Greek fathers who were early translated into 
 Syriac, we shall find, Nestorius, Hannana (of Hedhaiyabh), Babai 
 the Great, Babai the Persian, Honain, and other valuable writers, 
 as. well as references to lost books, such as the Diatessaron and the 
 Succinct Exposition of Matthew, which are quoted by title : 
 occasionally he refers to a book of traditions by Hebrew Christians 
 which supplement the Gospel narrative^ So valuable is the work 
 that it deserves to be published in full, for it contains almost all 
 that is important in later writers like Bar-Salibi and Bar- 
 Hebraeus, and in an earlier form. I hope to be able to commit it 
 to the press before long, but as my first interest in the work centres 
 in the extracts from Ephrem and from the Diatessaron, I have 
 collected these as far as they have come under my notice in 
 reading, and the result lies in the following pages, supplemented 
 by such parallels and augmentations as I have been able to draw 
 from the great Monophysite Doctors. It is needless to say that 
 no attempt is made at completeness. Not only must there be 
 many passages of the Ephrem commentary extant in Syriac which 
 we have failed to recognize, but it is reasonable to suppose that 
 the Armenian Commentary by the aid of which we make our 
 identifications has often suffered fi-om contraction, in either the 
 
 ^ For example we are told that Simeon, who carried our Lord in his arms, was 
 the son of Honia, who was the son of Honia a priest, who was the father of Jesus 
 Bar-Sira. 
 
12 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 process of translation or the course of tradition, so that portions of 
 Ephrem may be found in Isho'dad and elsewhere (either expressly 
 named or recognized by their pronounced Ephremitic flavour) 
 which we are unable to place in their proper connexion in the 
 Commentary, or which we can only place there with much hesita- 
 tion. For passages of this kind a good margin must be left. 
 
 Enough has probably been said to shew the importance of the 
 new Commentary. Attention had already been drawn to it by 
 two American scholars, first by Dr Isaac H. Hall, who has the 
 credit of opening the mine, and then by Prof. Gottheil, who had 
 used some of the direct references to the Diatessaron, which are 
 contained in it. 
 
 Dr Hall's article will be found in the Journal of Biblical 
 Literature, Vol. XL, 1891, Pt 11, pp. 153—155', and Prof. Gott- 
 heil's in the same periodical. Vol. xil., 1892, Pt 1, pp. 68 — 71. 
 It is to these notices that I am indebted for my knowledge of 
 Isho'dad and his Commentary, and for the suggestions of its bear- 
 ing upon the Diatessaron and associated questions. That it is 
 really the work of Isho'dad may be seen: 
 
 (i) from the statement of the Nestorian bibliographer 'Ebed- 
 yeshu or 'Abd-isho' (■f'1318), who tells us that Isho'dad composed 
 inter alia an exposition of the New Testament; 
 
 (ii) from the headings and subscriptions of the MS., which tell 
 us clearly that this is the book spoken of by 'Abd-isho'. Thus the 
 Cambridge copy on f 13 r. says : 
 
 ' By the help of the Lord Jesus Christ we begin to write the 
 Light of the New Testament, which the lover of learning Mar 
 Isho'dad of Merv'', bishop of Hedatha' in Assyria, toiled over and 
 collected from the writings of the interpreters and teachers of 
 the holy Church. Our Lord, help me, and save me, and make 
 me wise by the grace of thy mercy. Amen.' 
 
 On the last leaf we read as follows : 
 
 ' Here is ended by the help of him who created this world [cod. 
 adds ' the maker '] this book of the Light of the Gospel which is 
 full of light which was made by the holy governor Mar Isho'dad 
 the blessed, bishop of the district of Assyria....' 
 
 It will be noticed that there is some confusion in the titles 
 
 ^ It passed to Germany through a notice of Dr Nestle. 
 
 ^ Cod. KlAtO-VSa.!. ' Cod. r^J^riM. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 13 
 
 and subscriptions. Isho'dad is called deMaruzaya, where we 
 should have expected Maruzaya or merely deMaru'. Further the 
 closing subscription calls him Bishop of the region of Assyria, 
 without naming the city. 
 
 But, however this may be, the name of the author is clearly 
 given, and there is no doubt that it is the Nestorian writer of 
 whom 'Abd-isho' speaks, and whom Wright, in his Syriac Litera- 
 ture (p. 220), described as follows : 
 
 'Isho'dadh of Maru or Merv, bishop of HSdhatta or al- 
 Hadithah, was a competitor with Theodosius for the patriarchate 
 in 852. According to 'Abhd-isho' his principal work was a Com- 
 mentary on the New Testament, of which there are MSS. in Berlin, 
 Sachau 311, and in the collection of the S.P.C.K.'' It extended 
 however to the Old Testament as well, for in Cod. Vat. cccclvii. 
 we find the portions relating to Genesis and Exodus.' 
 
 The S.P.C.K. MS. to which Wright alludes is the one which we 
 use from the Cambridge University Library: it contains, as we 
 said above, part of the Commentary on the Pentateuch'. There 
 is also a copy (= Bodl. Or. 624) in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. 
 
 We shall now give some of the references to the Diatessaron 
 which are found in Isho'dad, after which we shall pass on to collect 
 the fragments which Isho'dad has extracted from Ephrem's Com- 
 mentary upon the Diatessaron, in connexion with which we shall 
 have to ask whether the acquaintance of the writer with Ephrem 
 extends beyond the commentary in question. 
 
 It is very important to observe that the allusions both to the 
 Diatessaron and to the Ephrem Commentary are so extensive that 
 it is necessary to allow that the quotations involve an actual 
 acquaintance with the works in question, and consequently there 
 is no room for doubting Isho' dad's further statement that the 
 Ephrem Commentary is a commentaiy upon the text of Tatian. 
 It may seem unnecessary to make this last remark, but it is im- 
 portant to remember that the identification has been questioned 
 in certain quarters, and every piece of evidence upon the point is 
 useful. 
 
 ^ Is there any chance of this being the same person as Isho' Marnzaya or Isho' 
 of Merv, the compiler of a Syriac lexicon, which was one of the sources of Bar 
 'All's glosses? see Wright, Syriac Literature, p. 215. 
 
 ' i.e. the Society for the Promotion of Christian Enowledge. 
 
 ' Three other MSS. are said to exist in America, viz. two in the Library of Lane 
 Theological Seminary, one (incomplete) in the possession of Dr Hall. 
 
14 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 But when we say that Ephrem commented upon the text of 
 the Diatessaron, we do not mean to imply that the text of the 
 Diatessaron had come down unchanged to Ephrem's day. It had 
 two hundred years of life before it reached Ephrem's hands, and, 
 loyal as Syria was to her great teacher and evangelist, we have no 
 right to suppose that the Diatessaron enjoyed an immunity from 
 correction of which the Gospels in their separate form shew no 
 signs. If they were corrected again and again, the Diatessaron 
 was not likely to escape from similar treatment. It need not 
 have been reformed to the Peshito in Ephrem's time, and the 
 evidence is clear that it was not ; but the evidence is also clear 
 that in passages which were of dogmatic importance, as well as in 
 some of a less pronounced character, the hand of the corrector 
 was laid upon the text. The same thing happened after Ephrem 
 had done his work, for, as we have seen, the Commentary will 
 often shew earlier readings than the text. More than that, an 
 adventurous writer has occasionally aired his own erudition on 
 Ephrem's pages by telling us what the Greek text is, and some- 
 times has displaced the original Syriac by his obtrusive activity^ 
 
 Let us then examine into the direct traces of the Diatessaron 
 in Isho'dad. 
 
 1. In the prologue to Mark (f. 146 r.) we are told 
 
 \^ '•" t^\flf»»\;or<' «^_OGrx>&uj3i(^ ^ "^^^ (^'.icafloo 
 .r^^^LMSa.i .en . (sic!) ^^_^^ori..i ^iao »^_^V^aT^ ^usso 
 cnnx.«S T^Jcnlo ..s&v^t^ ru tt*MiiT*a.t co^OcrAi<' A^o 
 
 Le. Titianos the disciple of Justin the philosopher and martyr selected 
 from the four gospels and comhined and composed a Gospel and called it 
 Diatessaron, i.e. of the Combined; and on the Divinity of Christ he did not 
 write ; and upon this Gospel Mar Ephrem conmiented. 
 
 [The extract is given by Gottheil, 1. c. p. 70.] 
 
 This statement reappears with slight changes, some amplifica- 
 tion, and not a little ultimate confusion, in Bar-Salibi and in Bar- 
 Hebraeus. Bar-Salibi does not have the sentence 'and on the 
 
 ' It will be seen that I am now satisfied that the references to the ' Graeous ' in 
 the Commentary are not from Ephrem, but some later person. 
 
INTEODUCTION. 15 
 
 Divinity of Christ he did not write/ nor does Bar-Hebraeus. 
 Both of them add that the combined Gospel begins with the 
 words ' In the beginning was the Word.' Both of them change 
 'psoa \^ u of Isho'dad into >fl90 \*.m, which suggests the de- 
 pendence of Bar-Hebraeus on Bar-Salibi. The word \y\w is 
 justified by the following r<^\\.w*w. Finally, Bar-Hebraeus com- 
 bines with the whole passage (if indeed he is the first to do so) 
 the language of Eusebius with regard to the Diatessaron of 
 Ammonius^, 
 
 2. In discussing the opening verses of S. Mark's Gospel, 
 Isho'dad distinguishes the reading of the Diatessaron of Tatian 
 from that of Ammoniusl 
 
 f. 149 r. 
 
 i.e. Others say: that the book of the Diatessaron which was composed' 
 in Alexandria says instead of the passage of the Diatessaron 'it is written 
 in Isaiah,' ' [it is written] in the prophets.' 
 
 Here the distinction is clearly drawn between the two Diates- 
 sarons and it is affirmed that Tatian read iv 'lia-ata and Am- 
 monius iv rot? wpotfyiJTaK. It may be questioned. Does not this 
 involve the admission that Tatian began his Gospel with Mark ? 
 The answer, however, must be in the negative. What the com- 
 mentator has referred to in Tatian is not Mark, but Matthew 
 (iii. 3), as may be seen by comparing the words ascribed to Tatian 
 
 with the Old Syriac translation of o ptjOeU Sia 'Haatov in 
 Matt. iii. 3. 
 
 ^ Note that the same statements are made again in Bar-Salibi's preface to the 
 four Gospels, which Loftus does into Latin as follows : 
 
 0. 33. Nonnulll dicuut quod Eusebius CaesarieusiB quando observasset Eu- 
 monlum Alexandrinum confecisse Evangelium SiaTiaaapov (sic I) vocatum (hoc est) e 
 quatuor, et adhaerentiam verborum mntasse, similiter etiam fecisse Titianum Grae- 
 cum haereticum, ipse coegit (1. coUegit) ilia quatuor et eorum singula seorsim 
 Bcripsit. 
 
 ^ This passage was wrongly translated by me in the Contemporary Review (Aug. 
 1895). 
 
 ^ lege ^Oca ^OaSs:! which was composed. 
 
16 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The reference, therefore, to Mark in Tatian is a misunderstand- 
 ing. As to the reference to Ammonius, this is probably correct, 
 for there is reason to believe that in Ammonius the Gospels are 
 kept distinct. 
 
 As we have said, Isho'dad carefully distinguishes the two Dia- 
 tessarons ; it is otherwise with his followers, to whom the confu- 
 sion was natural enough : and in one place of Bar-Salibi which 
 deals with this very passage before us the confusion is obvious, 
 though it may be questioned whether it may not be due to faulty 
 transcription, since Bar-Salibi elsewhere makes the distinction 
 clearly enough. At all events, here is the passage, with the ac- 
 companying translation of Loftus. 
 
 ' Others [say] that in the book of Diatessaron which is pre- 
 served' in Alexandria and was written by Tatianus the Bishop, as 
 also in the Greek Gospel and in the Harkalian, it is written " In 
 the prophet," without explaining what prophet.' 
 
 The exact genesis of the confusion is not easily determined; 
 the passage evidently leans on early statements as to the com- 
 position- of the Diatessaron of Ammonius; and it is quite possible 
 that it is merely a blundering restatement of the passage given 
 above from Isho'dad, with the name of the author of the better- 
 known Diatessaron brought in from a marginal gloss. 
 
 3. (f. 29 r.) On Matt. i. 20 Isho'dad remarks, inter alia, 
 
 .:vV^ii(<'.l >*CD mj3 ^\ lAxK*! ^CD jaJuM Tuaoo .°v\mt. 
 ^ .ens .iSu^r<':i >i ocn.i .^.i Tsqi< ^.^^itt^^.i 
 
 'Others say: that the one who translated from Hebrew into 
 Syriac changed the word, and instead of the expression "that 
 
 ' Or composed. '' God. cnjLfla,*! (sic). 
 
INTRODUCTION. 17 
 
 which is begotten in her," used the words " that which is bom in 
 her ;" but the Diatessaron says " that which is bom in her, is from 
 the Holy Ghost.'" [The extract is given by Gottheil, 1. c. p. 69.] 
 4. On Matt. iii. 5, according to Isho'dad^, 
 
 r^lzn.1 ^oA CDi\Acu9kr<lS9 .i-sarc' ^.l ^^m\..i 
 
 i.e. The Diatessaron says, Hia meat was honey and milk of the mountains. 
 
 We correct the text to ' milk and honey of the mountains,' and 
 remark that ' of the mountains ' is the translation of dypio<; : [cf 
 Cod. Ludov. m loc, and the Palestine Syriac version passim]. 
 
 As this passage influences both Bar-Salibi and Bar-Hebraeus, I 
 give the remainder of Dr Hall's extract for the sake of comparison. 
 
 'But the Diatessaron says. His food indeed was honey and milk 
 of the mountains. Others, the locusts indeed are tender roots 
 that resemble parsnep, i.e. gezar, and not very pleasant to the 
 taste : which some call qamsis but others qa/msin, but in Persian 
 mang. Others say that they are roots which are called qatiche, 
 which in form indeed is like locusts, but in taste sweet, like 
 honey. Others that they are shoots of plants, and also that this 
 is what is meant by the honey. This is not sweet they say, but 
 that is bitter and loathsome which wild bees make^ 
 
 According to the Expositor, locusts are winged creatures, and 
 the honey is that of nature ; that is from the warmth of place [i.e. 
 its habitat is warm] and its constitution air, since it is continually 
 found there [lit. they continually find it there].' 
 
 The corresponding passage in Bar-Salibi is as follows : 
 
 ,MJLM rc*n\w .TA :(^ia.i r<*T-i.io rcf-i\t> cDA\<xa:=a.i 
 
 i.e. Others say: that in the Diatessaron, i.e. the Gospel of Four, it is 
 written that his meat was milk and honey of the wild'; since milk was 
 proper to his youth and honey to the manly age*. 
 
 ' The Cambridge copy has been Bomewhat abbreviated at this point. I follow 
 Dr HaU's text. 
 
 2 This betrays the hand of a person who lived in Armenia, whose bitter honey 
 has been spoken of by Xenophon and later travellers. 
 
 ' Note the correction of the primitive reading. 
 
 * Cod. Mus. Brit. Add. 12,143, fol. 52. 
 
 H. D, 2 
 
18 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Finally, we have in Bar-Hebraeus : " His meat was locusts and 
 honey of the wild.... Some say that 'locusts' means roots and 
 sweet plants (qauche), but in the Diatessaron 'milk and honey' 
 is written." 
 
 It is interesting to study these passages and note the in- 
 fluence of the primitive Encratite reading, arid of allied alter- 
 native readings. Tatian substituted 'milk' for 'locusts'; and 
 one might naturally ask how he found a supply of this aliment 
 in the wilderness. The answer is in Bar-Salibi; he was taken 
 into the wilderness by his mother, who for fifteen years minis- 
 tered to his needs'. But there were other vegetarian readings 
 besides that of Tatian ; we see traces of them in the language of 
 Isho'dad; precisely as the Gospel according to the Hebrews had 
 substituted for dxplSe^ the similarly sounding ey/ep/Se?, some 
 Syrian reformers had found a vegetable word ^ tflffgin which 
 sounded very nearly like K'-san. We can thus get some mea- 
 sure of the extent of the hostility to the ' locusts ' among early 
 believers. They were great lovers of clean provender. 
 
 A further curious instance of the hostility of the Eastern 
 Christians to the locusts in the diet of St John the Baptist has 
 been pointed out to me by Prof Nestle. It occurs in a story told 
 to Peter the Iberian by Peter the disciple of Abba Isaia, to the 
 effect that when his teacher was sick and near to death, he was 
 overheard to be in conversation with some unknown person ; and 
 a subsequent enquiry on the part of the disciple elicited the 
 information that the mysterious person addressed was St John the 
 Baptist, who had answered the question as to what were the locusts 
 that he had eaten in the wilderness, in the following words : 
 
 .oocn »_^cfuiil(^ K'vai.i (^Ha^-l f^^CiaX.i 
 
 "They were the hearts [or pith] of wild roots." See Payne 
 Smith, Col. 3649 s.v. r<^na. 
 
 5. It was suspected by Zahn from the Commentary of Ephrem 
 on the Baptism of our Lord, that there stood in his text some 
 allusion to the fire at the Jordan and the light which blazed forth 
 when Christ was baptized. As the text, however, is non-extant 
 in this part of the Commentary, it might be thought that this 
 conjecture of Zahn's was somewhat hazardous. Why, it may 
 
 ' Porphyry is credited with a somewhat similar experience. 
 
INTBODUCTION. 19 
 
 be said, may not Ephrem have known the tradition from other 
 sources than Tatian ? 
 
 But Zahn is justified by the extract from Isho'dad (f. 43 v.) 
 which we have printed on p. 43, in which it is expressly stated, 
 according to the Diatessaron, that 'hght shined forth at the 
 Jordan.' 
 
 6. The next passage tells us of a curious primitive rendering 
 of the word avieofiopia in the Diatessaron, which, as we shall see, 
 was not in Ephrem's copy. 
 
 f. 100 V. 
 r^rE'it hy^ts .en .^.i — *\^ iuL.s .t^iH-Mr^ 
 
 i.e. Others say : that Bothphage means the place of insipid figs : and they 
 bring forward testimony from the Diatessaron and the Greek version ; in the 
 story that little Zaohaeus, who was little of stature and little of soul, climbed 
 up into the Phagg that he might see Jesus ; and this is in Syriac called the 
 insipid fig-tree. [Cf. Bar-Bahlul who says that this Phage is the reading of 
 the Combined Gospel.] 
 
 Here then we have the translation of ' sycomore ' by Tatian ; 
 and now turn to Ephrem in loc. (Mosinger, p. 180) and we shall 
 find him calling it a ' surda ficulnea,' and making comments upon 
 Zacchaeus, who was not to remain ' in surditate.' Is this an in- 
 terpretation of r^AteixiAA K'l&t^, or is it not an intermediate 
 stage in which the text has been corrected to K'Ax.nKla K'A<4« ? 
 
 If this is not the explanation, what are we to say of Ephrem's 
 
 It appears, then, that we have recovered a number of passages 
 in which the reading of the Diatessaron is expressly given by 
 Isho'dad. 
 
 But there is also more light to be obtained from the later 
 commentators who, though they appear to depend upon Isho'dad 
 in the information which they furnish, do not wholly depend upon 
 him. For example, there is a very important passage in which 
 Bar-Salibi seems to intimate that Tatian gave no harmonized 
 account of the Resurrecticfn. Every reader of Ephrem's text as 
 
20 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 current in the Armenian will have been struck by the poverty 
 of the Commentary at this part of the Gospel; and no doubt 
 suspicions will have arisen that there was something ' uncanny m 
 the text of Tatian where the Resurrection is recorded. 
 
 Now Bar-Salibi expressly says', in the prologue to the Gospels, 
 c. 33 : 
 
 .r<*\,tif»i\,\iOT^.i T^^osaix. .^_ocnj3 ^cu*o .«uu&Vfi 
 
 ^ ^V»i^.l relsoAr^ .jkAir^.l iuAO(<' .^^oitt^^.i 
 ^u«*o r^h\jsa^t.a:t t^iuk.^-x.^ h\o\ ah\r^ xAa .Aj^ 
 A^^^r^ oocu:uoo(^o .^^^omAscuA omT. r^&jLMSa.i 
 
 . . . r<^\ffti\^ot<'.i ^^cD^aa\T. 
 
 a passage which Loftus does into Latin as follows : 
 
 'Eusebius Caesariensis sollicitus fuit ut constitueret Canones Evangelii 
 quod constat ex Epistola ejiis ad Carpianum, et in iis monstret harmoniam 
 Evangelistamm. Scripserant enim Eumonius et Titianua etiam Evangelium 
 vocatum Siareara-apov [sic] (i.e.) quatuor prout supra diximus, et quando 
 venerant ad historiam resurrectionis et observaverant variationem abstinu- 
 erunt ab ipsa opera, sed Eusebio curae erat, ut hujusmodi Canones con- 
 ficeret, et ostenderet Evangelistarum inter se convenientiam...' 
 
 Here we are expressly told that Tatian and Ammonius found 
 it impossible to harmonize the Gospels of the Resurrection and 
 gave up the attempt. Whatever may be the meaning of this, it 
 is an important passage, and needs to be carefully weighed by 
 those who like myself have been arguing freely from the contents 
 and arrangement of the Arabic Harmony in its closing chapters. 
 
 Moses Bar-Kepha, as we have said, appears to be connected 
 with the source of some of the disputable matter in Bar-Salibi and 
 Bar-Hebraeus. For this reason I transcribe the sentences in 
 which Moses speaks of Eusebius and his Canons. In his intro- 
 ductory chapters we have as follows : 
 
 • Cod. Mus. Brit. 12,143. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 21 
 
 C. 63. 
 
 rtSo^^v.&.l -^Airt tt. . rt % \ .o>\ no .^.jaii^ XJ-an .CD 
 
 .AK'o .^^rclflore:^ i^isiea.i oca ...aA^or^ .la^ 
 coA .VV^ -t^r^ .r^siL^^h\A^ ^\in «x . ^ » V .«s.\ „ ocn 
 
 rcA^sai^OrC.! «._0CD^cULaiu9LSa.i r<lsax.a^ cniiV^O 
 
 A!\^ ^3Sa rdj'aia .13.^0 »_ocaA^ SiMdr^ i<l\ .^Kto 
 
 i.e. c. 53, Which shews who collected the four books of the Evangelists 
 and set them in order in one book. 
 
 And some people, indeed, say that Eusebius of Cesarea, when he saw 
 that Juhanus (sic! for Ammonius) of Alexandria made the Gospel of the 
 Diatessaron, i.e. by means of Four, and changed the sequence of things in 
 the Gospels, and that Tatian also the Greek, the heretic leader, made a 
 Gospel which is called Tasaron (sic!) and he too changed the sequence of 
 things; he, Eusebius, took care and collected the four books of the foiu; 
 Evangelists and set them in order and placed them in one book, and 
 preserved the body of their compositions as it was without taking anything 
 from them or adding anything to them, and made certain Canons on account 
 of their harmony one with another. 
 
 A very similar account will be found on f. 40 v., where Bar- 
 Kepha discusses the Canons of Eusebius. In neither passage 
 is there the slightest sign of any confusion between Tatian 
 and Ammonius. 
 
 We now pass to another poiut upon which a few words must 
 be said: viz. the extent of Isho'dad's acquaintance with the 
 writings of Ephrem. A mere superficial glance at the extracts 
 ' The MS. is torn ; we restore from the parallel passages. 
 
22 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 which we have identified will suffice to shew that he was a 
 close and careful reader of the Ephrem Commentary. Did he 
 extract from any other parts of Ephrem's works? The answer 
 is aflBrmative; for example, in commenting on Matt. xxvi. 29 
 (f. 127 V.) he says 
 
 i.e. And Mar Ephrem also in his discourse on the Epiphany [says], 'Of the 
 bread of life that is given to the world, it was not the angels that they ate, 
 but the Lord of the augels' &c. . 
 
 I have not, however, identified the passage in the printed 
 works of Ephrem. 
 
 There are a number of passages which are more difficult to 
 assign to their sources: we give a selection from them by way 
 of illustration. 
 
 Matt. iii. 4 (f. 39 r.) 
 cD^uix. .sitAi^.! .^\:xr^ (^'iMr<'(a >«i&r^ ^\sa 
 ^oocunT^^.l "^'■'\^ >il ixiaa .Qo.ioicn:! cos^m ^ 
 r<lu^eiaj^ f^so&cu* ^ oA ^.Ta2b. x^ .K'is.vsaX 
 "^h^r^ uijsa .rtlLsci^i r^Ck&^.l T^i.^.flo.1 f^!l*ita& 
 QoiA A.^.1 K'i^JOo.l K'fts ~t .r^Q *> -I r^XB aft » \ n 
 
 i.e. Mar Ephrem and others say that Elisabeth withdrew him from 
 the sword of Herod; she received, indeed, a revelation to run away 
 with him to the wilderness; while she made him from kind forethought 
 (lit. gracious wisdom) a coat of hair of the wool of camels. Mar Ephrem 
 only reads wool ; the wool of the hair which is on the belly of camels which is 
 not very rough. 
 
 Bar-Salibi has access to similar traditions when he says 
 (Loftus, p. 83), "The Lord Ephraim saith. That she received 
 direction by vision, to fly from the sword of Herod, and that 
 she made him a coat of camel's hair and a girdle to bind his 
 loyns." 
 
INTRODUCTION. 23 
 
 Lukeiii. 19(f. 78r.) 
 
 cniflrH oaQa>\i°k.l 
 
 Mar Ephrem and others say that Herod took her [Herodias] after the 
 death of Philip. 
 
 Luke iv. 26 (f. 14 r.) 
 
 T^-»*"iaj^."l r<'A»o,icaflo vyK* .K^co (<bcn ^mahur^ ^.1 
 
 i.e. Elias raised up the son of the widow of Sarepta ; and this was Jonah, 
 according to the testimony of the Hebrews and of Mar Ephrem. 
 
 Matt. xxvi. 75 (f. 132 r.) 
 >1 rt'i^.i GoA >fl0 r <'\ \} -iA<.i cojuid.! T^hxa&^Aj^ 
 
 i.e. But Mar Ephrem refers these two times [of cock-crowing] to the 
 repetition of the crowing of the cock; which crowed and immediately con- 
 tinued with another crow, that there might be crow upon crow, with a view to 
 the greater testimony to Simon. 
 
 Matt, xxvii. 19 (f. 133 v.) 
 
 iiu3 reLu.i &u^ GoA rt^Mi\i. :i&.'i Kll.X^rtf' r^^ 1 -1 -> 
 
 jcjVsk A^l re'ieniis 011.1000^ K'^rC;! 
 
 [The question is, why did not Pilate's wife tell him her dream in the 
 night ?] Mar Ephrem says that by Divine providence she forgot her dream 
 and did not tell him when he was in the house, in order that when she 
 sends to him to the judgment hall, after it has come to her remembrance, 
 everyone may fall into astonishment. 
 
EXTRACTS FROM THE COMMENTARY OF EPHREM 
 ON THE GOSPEL. 
 
 MSsinger, p. 1. 
 
 John i. 1. Quare Dominus noster 
 camem induit? Ut ipsa caro vic- 
 toriae gaudia gustaret, et dona 
 gratiae explorata et cognita haberet. 
 Si Deus sine came vicisset, quae ei 
 tribuerentur laudes ? 
 
 Imitated by Moses Bar-Kepha 
 (f. 27, a. 2). 
 
 .r^i^l K'ocn r^hutCiSLi.h\ 
 
 K'i.^.1 rdAa-r^ r^T<\Ao 
 rdi^^safA rC^M . . . o^n 
 
 i.e. For if God conquered Satan 
 without a body, what glory is it to 
 the body 1 But he was united to flesh 
 and soul that the body which was 
 the debtor... might overcome Satan. 
 
 Of. also (f. 27, a. 1). 
 i flr» -iA<PC' K'.icD A^*w 
 
 On this account he was incarnate 
 that it (the body) might participate in 
 his goodness, as far as it is possible. 
 
 Bar-Kepha begins his commentary with a long chapter on the 
 reasons why our Lord became incarnate, the heading being 
 
 0. 1. Sheweth the reasons on account of which God the Word 
 was incarnate and became man. 
 
EXTRACTS FROM EPHREM ON THE GOSPEL. 25 
 
 He evidently follows Ephrem at the very opening of his book, 
 though he does not name his model. 
 
 MSsinger, p. 6. Probably preserved in Isho"dad 
 
 Hoc verbum oaro factum est et ('• ^^' ''■)• 
 habitavitinvobis. nCi-^^ h.sar^ ClAi^O 
 
 i.e. And if he had said bodi/, it 
 would have been supposed that he had 
 sent down a body from heaven: for 
 this reason it was changed to ' flesh.' 
 
 I suspect that something has dropped here from the text of 
 Ephrem, which is represented in the accompanying extract of 
 Isho'dad : as I have suggested on p. 4 it was one of Ephrem's 
 doctrinal points that one should not say that the body of Christ 
 descended from heaven. The trouble occurs again in Isho'dad in 
 connexion with the Old Sjnriac reading in John vi. 51 'I am the 
 living bread that descended,' 'the bread that I will give is my 
 body ' (so Cod. Ludov., Cod. Curet, and the Palestine text). 
 
 Accordingly Isho'dad says', He did not wish to teach us that 
 his body was from heaven. It was not the body that descended 
 from heaven, but the power that made the bread a body from 
 heaven, for our Lord was teaching here, not of his own body, but 
 of the bread of the mystery. 
 
 r^lixMn redr^ .^a\l.i KLs^ rdiJSU. ^ cni^& o\ 
 
 \^ .ocD r^sxix. ^ r^i^^ rtf'JSOjjja crA .ia^i..i ocn 
 
 Mosinger, p. 12. Cf. Isho'dad (f. 178 r.). 
 
 Scripserunt digiti in tabula, p^en\r^.1 rcHXu r«'1 I'wA- 
 
 'Joannes,' quod nomen indicat nos 
 
 misericordia indigere. . >nzai 0\sa 
 
 ' John ' is interpreted to mean ' the 
 grace of God.' 
 
 1 MS. Univ. Cant. Add. 1973, f . 266 v. 
 
26 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM "THE COMMENTARY OF 
 
 Mosinger, p. 14. 
 
 Luke i. 24. Et quod dicit: ^16- 
 scondit se Miaaheth, scilicet ex tris- 
 titia de eis quae Zachariae' accide- 
 rant. Sursus abscondit se, quia earn 
 pudebat se deorepitam. ad usum matri- 
 luoniae rediisse. 
 
 Mosinger, p. 15. 
 
 Luke i. 24. De Elisabeth autem 
 scriptum est, quod se absconderit qwin- 
 que menses, donee scilicet membra 
 filii sui formarentur, ut laetabundus 
 coram Domino suo exultaret, et quia 
 Mariae annimciatio prope erat. 
 
 The same opinion is repeated on 
 p. 19 in nearly the same words : Ac 
 propterea per sex menses, donee 
 membra infantis perfecta essent, 
 conceptus Elisabeth abscondebatur 
 Mariae, ut infans ante Domimun 
 suum laetabundus exiliret et exiliendo 
 Mariae testis fieret. 
 
 Isho'dad(f. ]72r.). 
 efLJtJS^^ rf.i T\*a.1 •'CD 
 
 ^00.1 da^o^XMS r^cQ.jJSaot 
 
 .r^'v&t.i gain n s A^-n 
 
 i.e. She hid herself five months : 
 (i) because she was astonished at the 
 novelty of what had taken place; 
 (ii) on account of the sorrow of 
 Zachaiias ; (iii) because of the shame 
 on acooimt of her old age; and (iv) 
 because perhaps she was not sure 
 that she was going to bring forth. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 172 v.). 
 i_aOV_a:i ^CD .JEUM-M.I 
 
 .cD'usa A -I nciA 
 
 A\jsaa 
 
 i.e. Fifthly, which is more exact, 
 [she hides herself] while the babe is 
 being perfected in his Umbs to exult 
 before his Lord ; and because the 
 annunciation is about to be made to 
 Mary also. 
 
 1 M. notes as follows: ad Terbnm, ex tristitia Zachariae. Mou dubito, geni- 
 tivnm object! hoc loco adesse. The observation is exactly confirmed by the Syriac 
 text, which shews us how literally the Armenian translator had followed his copy. 
 
EPHREM ON THE GOSPEL. 
 
 27 
 
 M6singer, p. 15. Isho'dad (f. 172 v.). 
 
 Luke i. 26. Meme sexto: numerat- ^^,, r^4»i»3S f».l -co 
 enim Evangelista tempus, ex quo ^ 
 
 Elisabeth coucepit. Ar^Va^ r^L&r^Jea ojaiuLt^ 
 
 i.e. In the sixth month the angel 
 Gabriel was sent, reckoned from the 
 tenth day of the former Teshri. 
 
 The Armenian text seems here to have abbreviated both the 
 text and comment of Ephrem ; for the parallel passage in Isho'dad 
 tells us that the annunciation to Zacharias was made in the sixth 
 month, reckoned from the tenth of the former Teshri. And we 
 find by reference to Mosinger, p. 18 (v. infra), that this is the 
 actual date assigned by Ephrem to the visit of the angel to 
 Zacharias. 
 
 Mosinger, p. 16. 
 
 Alio loco eadem Scriptura dixit, 
 utrumque, Josephum et Mariam, esse 
 ex domo David. 
 
 (Cf. Cod. Ludov. in Luc. ii. 4.) 
 
 Cf. Isho'dad (f. 173 r.). 
 
 i.e. The expression ' of the house of 
 David' is common to both Joseph 
 and the Virgin. 
 
 Mosinger, p. 17. 
 
 Luke i. 39. Bt av/rgens ahiit Maria 
 ad Elisaheth, ut disceret, num revera 
 ita ei factimi esset, et ut, de hoc 
 certior facta, de eo quod ad se speo- 
 tabat non dubitaret. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 177 r.). 
 ^D_>T-— Q »-ai g\ sarin ^cn 
 
 i.e. Mary rose and went anxiously, 
 in order that she might make trial of 
 what had been said by the angel 
 concerning her. 
 
28 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE COMMENTARY OF 
 
 Moainger, p. 18. 
 
 Luke i. Post tres autem menses 
 in domum suam reveraa est hac ex 
 causa, ne Dominus ante servum suum 
 quasi famulus staret. 
 
 MSsinger, p. 18. 
 
 Conoepit Elisabeth mense Sahmi, 
 postquam Zachariaa dies ministerii 
 et officii sui complevit. Annunciatio 
 Mariae evenit decimo die mensis 
 Arek, sicut ilia Zachariae decimo die 
 mensis Hori. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 177 v.). 
 r^Mr£^ r^.ta r<\\r^ ya^^ 
 cnSQr^ ^j».T cosap^a h\aca 
 
 But she goes home, on account of 
 its not being proper that the mother 
 of our Lord should wait upon the 
 mother of the servant. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 172 v.). 
 
 i.e. The annunciation was made 
 to Zacharias in the tenth day of the 
 former Teshrin ; and to Mary on the 
 tenth day of Nisan. 
 
 The translator has given us Hori as the equivalent of the 
 former Teshrin, and Sahmi for the latter Teshrin ; Arek stands 
 for Nisan. The latter identification explains the allusion to the 
 flower of Arek on p. 17 : by which term either John the Baptist 
 or Christ (it is not quite clear which) is described. 
 
 The allusion to the flowery Nisan is exactly in Ephrem's 
 manner ; for example Hymnus de Grucifixione (Lamy, i. 708) : 
 
 i.e. Let Nisan adorn him with a crown of its flowers ; 
 or Hymnus de Resurrectione (Lamy, ii. 762) : 
 
 i.e. In Nisan the flowers break open their cups, and their roses blowj 
 
 and so passim. Cf ed. Eom. iii. 603, 604 etc. 
 
 But, in fact, as will be seen later on, a large piece of this very 
 hymn, beginning with the two lines which we have quoted, is 
 
EPHREM ON THE GOSPEL. 29 
 
 transferred bodily into the Commentary: see under Mosinger, 
 p. 237. 
 
 The hymn last quoted explains also why Ephrem says (p. 18) 
 that in the month of Nisan the nakedness of Adam was covered : 
 " eodem die agnus verus in utero virginis inclusus est, quo tempore 
 lux potitur imperio, et per hoc docuit, se venisse, ut Adami nudi- 
 tatem obtegeret." We may compare (Lamy, ii. p. 763) : 
 
 .t<*n 1 <w -t ^ ft! ■ 1 oLjki 
 
 ..T-i\«W r^Liiulx. rdlllf^ 
 
 ..Si&uaa r^;^i(^.i r^xsoioSi 
 .JtsXr^a A^ii mxsa vyr^* 
 
 i.e. Sweet Nisan has conquered, 
 
 And mingles its sweetness with the air; 
 
 It clothes the bare trees, 
 Which is a mystery of the Father of Orphans; 
 It shames the nakedness of the earth. 
 Just as its Lord shamed and clad 
 
 The nakedness of Eve in Eden — 
 
 or p. 769 : 
 
 Kl:k.ir<A .flftii .30^ ocn 
 
 >Aia^ Aa:i rdx.aal ciu .Tn\*aa ist 
 
 r^SacD.i KlObi&o 
 ^ on 1 1 .T^..i-&J3 >a .11^.1 mOTiT^ 
 
 etc. 
 
 i.e. Lo, once again Nisan for the earth 
 
 Weaves and clothes her with a garb of all hues ; 
 The creation is clad with a robe of flowers 
 
 And a tunic of blossoms. 
 The mother of Adam in the feast of Nisan 
 
 Is clad with a robe not woven of hands. 
 
30 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE COMMENTARY OF 
 
 Mosinger, p. 21. 
 
 Id propter seriem regum factum 
 est, quia impossibile erat, ut infans 
 nomine matris suae geuealogiae in- 
 scriberetur, hac autem ratione filius 
 David regibus adscriptus est. 
 
 of. Ephrem (ed. Rom. iii. 601), 
 
 ^li^T^7^ rel^.1 ..t*o.i ^ia\ 
 
 i.e. The aeries of kings is written 
 according to the name of men, instead 
 of women. Joseph the son of David 
 betroths the daughter of David, be- 
 cause the child cannot be enrolled 
 in the name of its mother. 
 
 Mosinger, p. 22. 
 
 Matt. i. 19. Joseph, qui mr Justus 
 erat, noluit tradueere Mariam. Sed 
 ecce justitia ejus inimica et contraria 
 est legi, quae dixit: Manus tua pri- 
 miim incipiet lapidare earn. 
 
 Mosinger (p. 22). 
 Multa testimonia habebat [Jo- 
 sephus], Zachariam mutum, Elisabeth 
 praegnantem, angeli anmmciationem, 
 ezultationem Joannis et prophetiam 
 patrum ejus; haec enim omnia cum 
 aJiis multis de conceptione virginis 
 conclamabant. 
 
 Bar-Salibi in loc. 
 K^cn.i oo^air^^ K'cDO 
 r^fl»eC9aA itocD t<laeL£xflo 
 K'ocD^ vv:t-*r^.l iiot^s 
 
 Loftus, p. 36. And behold justice 
 was contrary to the law which saith, 
 Thy hand shall be first upon her. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 182 v.), 
 recounting the things that Mary had 
 laid up in her heart : 
 
 .T^noi&a.! r^Cl2b.i re'^o.l 
 
 r^^cuaJ ..ajtooA.! r^xA^ 
 
 ■ ■s-iTi\r<ta 
 
 .r^i^\ .1^.1 
 
 i.e. The exultation of the babe in 
 the womb, the revelation made to 
 Joseph, the prophecy to Zacharias 
 and Elizabeth, and the annunciation 
 of the angel to herself. 
 
 And cf. Bar-Sahbi in loc. 
 
 «A 
 
 
 30^ 
 
 1^ 
 
EPHREM ON THE GOSPEL. 
 
 31 
 
 r<^o.ia 
 
 
 Mosinger, p. 23. 
 
 At quomodo fieri potuit, ut ea 
 quae domus fuit et habitatio Spiritus, 
 et cui divina virtus obumbravit, 
 postea oonjux mortalis hominis fieret 
 et in doloribus juxta similitudinem 
 primae maledictionis pareret. Quum 
 enim Maria benedicta est in mu- 
 lieribua, per earn soluta sunt male- 
 dicta originalia quibus filii in doloribus 
 et maledictis pariuntur. 
 
 MSsinger, p. 24. 
 Sed sicut Dominus intravit portis 
 olausis eodem modo ex utero virginal! 
 exiit, quia baec virgo sine partus 
 doloribus realiter et vere peperit. 
 
 M5singer, p, 24, 
 Si autem propterea quod quidam 
 discipuli fratres Domini nominantur, 
 
 Loftus, p. 36. Moreover for that 
 he had heard of Elizabeth's being with 
 child, of Zaoharias' loss of speech, and 
 of John's exultation, and he thought 
 also that this was a miracle. 
 
 cf. Isho'dad (f. 174 v.). 
 
 red rS'T.au^s i^ivAoiua 
 i.1.^ r^'m.x. .coA y ' "^ n 
 rt^iiuji r«lsax.o K'^aiis.i 
 
 .^.•^sa red 
 
 i.e. For there are no pangs in the 
 case of a virgin that man has not 
 known : the name of virginity and the 
 name of birth pangs cannot be true 
 together. 
 
 Bar-Salibi in loc. 
 
 Loftus, p. 45. And that Joseph 
 did not approach imto her, is evident 
 from the honour due unto her Son, 
 and that she was a Habitacle to the 
 Spirit, and that she received the 
 Vertue of the most High, and that 
 she was the most blessed of women, 
 and that it was indecent she should 
 bring forth with pains and curses. 
 
 Imitated by Bar-Salibi. 
 Loftus, p. 46. If thou requireat 
 proof or illustration, hear how he 
 came forth of the Sepulchre un- 
 opened, and entered into the Parlour 
 being shut up; so he came forth of 
 the womb not prejudicing virginity. 
 
 Imitated by Bar-Salibi. 
 Loftus, p. 46. Although Joses and 
 James and others were called his 
 
32 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE COMMENTARY OF 
 
 existimant hos Alios fuisse Mariae, 
 soiant quod et ipse Christus appel- 
 latus est filius Josephi, non solum a 
 Judaeis sed et a Maria matre ejus. 
 
 Mosinger, p. 25. 
 
 Matt. i. 25, Luke ii. 7. Ipse autem 
 primogenitus nos in baptismo genuit 
 et donis suis primogenitos fecit : 
 
 Mosinger, p. 25. 
 
 Matt. i. 25. Donee peperit primo- 
 genitv/m,,.. Doneo hoc loco non ter- 
 minum quendam significat, quemad- 
 modum etiam in illo loco : Dixit 
 Dominus domino meo, Sede a dextris 
 meis, donee ponam inimicos sub pedes 
 tuos. Secus enim diceretur, quando 
 inimici sub pedes ejus positi sint, 
 eum surrecturum esse. 
 
 Brethren, yet they were not so called 
 as being bom of the Virgin, but 
 because they were the sons of Joseph 
 by another wife, and they were in 
 the way of his dispensation called his 
 brethren as Joseph was called his 
 father. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 181 v.). 
 
 
 "X' 
 
 "V 
 ^^.1 
 
 i.e. The firstborn; (i) as opening 
 the womb of his mother; (ii) from 
 baptism ; (iii) from the resurrection ; 
 (iv) as the head of many brethren. 
 
 Cf. Bar-Salibi in he. 
 
 Loftus, p. 46. The firstborn of 
 many brethren, because he hath 
 many brethren from baptism, i.e. to 
 say regeneration. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 30 r.) 
 has a mass of similar quotations 
 to prove the same point. Cf. also 
 Bar-Salibi in loc. 
 
 w^Miva vysu.i .■wiub.a 
 
 Loftus, p. 26. Christ shall reign 
 until he shall put all enemies under 
 
 his feet : wherefore the word 
 
 'until' in these and other the like 
 places is not spoken definitely. 
 
EPHREM ON THE GOSPEL. 33 
 
 M6singer, p. 26. Isho'dad (f. 179 r.). 
 
 Dixit itaque nativitatem Ohristi in cv» <\ V «»f <\ V t^ V yV. ^"vygi 
 
 diebus Augusti fuisse. Cur autem ^^ 
 
 prima haec descriptio tempore quo gV-SO-l.y.a i^O-ailJM ^ Cfi n 
 
 natus est Dominus facta est? Quia . . 
 
 soriptumest: Non deficiet princepa ^ r^.l a ansi .i rraiOxaJ 
 
 Judaenequedominatorexlumbisejus, i^a«,^o f^X^i. ^<v% 
 
 donee veniet is cujus peciUium est. ' ' v 
 
 i.e. For he makes mention of Au- 
 gustus Caesar in order to shew that 
 the prophecy of Jacob was fulfilled 
 that ' the Sceptre shall not pass away, 
 etc' 
 
 MSsinger, p. 27. Isho'dad (f. 179 r.). 
 
 lUo igitur tempore venit, quia defe- ^ ^ v ^ \ ^ \ ^ Ocn.l 
 
 cerat rex et propheta. "^ 
 
 i.e. In that Herod completely 
 brought to confusion the kingdom 
 and priesthood of Israel. 
 
 Mosinger, p. 27. 
 In connexion with the account of the visit of the shepherds to 
 Bethlehem, there is room for a suspicion that the commentary 
 contained originally some statement as to the gifts brought by the 
 shepherds. For we find that Isho'dad refers expressly to Mar 
 Ephrem as the source of a statement which he makes with regard 
 to the gifts of the shepherds. The passage is as follows : 
 
 Isho'dad (£ 182 v.). 
 
 casa r<liLo^a.i y\ ^,__acoin^h\jSn .5ir^.io .t^.'OlA.i vyr^* 
 
 i.e. Mar Ephrem says that the shepherds came with three kinds of gifts : 
 flesh and milk and glory ; flesh for Joseph, milk for His mother, and glory 
 for the child ; and he says, moreover, that the coming of the Magi was 
 ordered for the self-same day by the wonder-working Divine intimation. 
 
 H. D, 3 
 
34. 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE COMMENTARY OF 
 
 There is something very like this in Ephrem's fifth Sermon in 
 natalem Domini (ed. Rom. ii. 418) as follows : 
 
 r^aAjA W*l'vi r^ao^^ K'^d^.i o&it^o jaah\ A X*<\ 
 
 reSuLSCUL. r^ia,lo . r<^ •a\ m ^tsoI .rti'iflaa ^oecuX ooco 
 
 The question is, whether this is a mere piece of poetic fancy on 
 Ephrem's part; if so, this must be the passage referred to by 
 Isho'dad; if, on the other hand, Ephrem is working upon some 
 expansion of the gospel narrative, we should expect him also to 
 shew signs of the same in the Commentary on the Diatessaron. 
 MSsinger, p. 28. Isho'dad (f. 183 v.). 
 
 Luke ii. 34. Et in signum contra- .^\ .^^en-^ "tj i^r^ ^\^Si 
 
 dictionts et tuam ipsius animam 
 
 pertransihit gladius: i.e. negatio. 
 [Sed Graecus clare dicit : Revelen- 
 tur in multis cordibus oogitationes.] 
 Nimirum eorum qui dvhitabant. Et 
 quod dicit : Fertransibit gladius, i.e. 
 et tu dubitabis, quia scilicet credidit 
 eum esse hortulanum. Admirabatur 
 enim, aiunt, Maria et de nativitate et 
 de conceptione ejus atque aliis narra- 
 vit, quomodo concepit et quare pepe- 
 rerit, et nonnulli, admirantes verbum 
 ejus, oonfortabantur, alii vero erant 
 qui de eo dubitarent. 
 
 [Of. Zahn, Tatian p. 61.] 
 
 ^^r^ At^ CO. a^£i^r^.i 
 A \y *a .cn-a ^ > \j..^A\A» 
 cn^'U&jsari.a r^i.sa.i&i.sa.i 
 
 .(Cod. ol^.i) .<cn(\!U..i 
 
 Mar Ephrem : Through thy own 
 soul the spear shall pass, in order 
 that many minds may doubt from the 
 hearts, those namely who doubted : 
 i.e. thou also shalt doubt, because 
 she marvelled at the marvels and 
 related them to others, and they were 
 set free from doubts concerning him. 
 The reference to the Graecus is by a later hand, for it has 
 displaced the true text in which there must have stood the key- 
 word dubitare. And as a matter of fact the desired word is easily 
 restored in the quotation of Isho'dad by the substitution of 
 »_O^^Au for .^_aS.\Au. 
 
 1 Bead f<r.l>V,l ? 
 
EPHREM ON THE GOSPEL. 
 
 35 
 
 Mary the Virgin is identified with Mary Magdalene, both here 
 and elsewhere in the commentary ; the same confusion is found in 
 the Talmud, which calls the mother of our Lord by the name of 
 Miriam the woman's hairdresser, which latter term is an attempt 
 to translate the word Magdalene. (See also Bar-Salibi, who tells us 
 that Mary Magdalene was so called because her hair was plaited.) 
 
 The passage in Luke, with the restored word supplied as 
 above, is the key to the understanding of the passage, Mosinger 
 269, where indeed the verse itself is quoted. 
 
 Maria dvbitavit quando audierat eum surrexisse, et venit et vidit eum et 
 dixit : ,Si tu sustulisti eum, ideo hoc dixit, ut ei ostenderet, se vere resur- 
 
 rexisse sed quia illi dvhUcmerunt, dixit ad earn : Donee asoendo ad 
 
 Patrem meum, non accedes ad me, ut illud : Tuam ipsius animam pertrans- 
 ibit gladius i.e. denegatio. 
 
 Mosinger, p. 31. Ephrem tells us that the Mystery of the Virgin Birth 
 was revealed to Moses, Gideon and Ezekiel. The explanation of this lies in 
 the Burning Bush, the Dew on the Fleece, and the Closed Door of the 
 Sanctuary. Statements to that effect will be found in Ephrem (ed. Kom. iii. 
 695 for Moses : i. 317 for Gideon ; and ed. Lamy, ii. 532 for Ezekiel). 
 
 I have no space to discuss at length the parallels between the Commentary 
 and the works of Ephrem: but this passage seemed to require a word of 
 explanation. 
 
 M5singer, p. 31. 
 Matt. ii. 8. Quemadmodum enim 
 propter Ezechiam signum datum est, 
 quod omnibus vera praedicaret, ut 
 per solem retrogradientem intelli- 
 gerent, quis ille esset, qui eum a 
 morte ad vitam reduxerat, ita etiam 
 hoc sidus etc. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 34 r.). 
 ■IP M \ -I oln (^Llv&r^O 
 
 r^O 
 
 «1 
 
 a^:i3.i 
 
 
 : T<L&iz..'io cn^oiivisao 
 
 i.e. And just as it was not for the 
 sake of Hezekiah alone that the sign 
 was given but that it might be pro- 
 claimed by the sun that returned to 
 the whole creation, and they might 
 know the Creator of all and the 
 one that brought back Hezekiah from 
 death to life, and his excellence, etc. 
 3—2 
 
36 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE COMMENTARY OF 
 
 Mosinger, p. 31. 
 
 Matt. ii. 11. Et aperuerunt the- 
 sauros suos et obtiderimi ei munera, 
 aurum humanitati ejus et myrrha/m 
 morti ejus et thus divinitati ejus ; vel, 
 aurum qua regi et thus qua Deo et 
 myrrham qua mortali. Bursus awru/m 
 quia adoratio quae coram aiu'o fie- 
 bat reditura erat ad dominum suum, 
 et myrrham et thus, quae medicum 
 annunciaverunt, qui yulnus Adami 
 sanaret. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 36 r.). 
 
 ciaiisn i*^ relsen.i .1*3 
 A-2k ^jsa K'ruM ..v..ici_z. cnX 
 
 r^ H\*g3.i nliaicka 
 
 o\ir^ ^:i r^iosa .Tts .... 
 .... cniieuLiK'.i rdzM A.^ 
 CLa.1.3 re'ia^a rt-k-s jsah\ 
 
 ^ir^.l coA<i T » 
 
 i.e. By the gold which they offered 
 to him, he intimated, (i) concerning 
 his kingdom, for gold is the offering 
 to kings ; by the myrrh they signi- 
 fied the sufferings of his humanity; 
 again by the myrrh they ascer- 
 tained that he is the physician who 
 heals the wotmds of Adam... by the 
 frankincense they intimated, first, of 
 his divinity. 
 
 Of. Bar-SaUbi in loo. 
 
 Loftus, p. 63. According to their 
 custom they offered these gifts, for 
 they were accustomed to burn incense 
 to their gods and to give gold to their 
 kings and to embalm their dead with 
 myrrh ; and forasmuch as they under- 
 stood that he was Qod and a king and 
 that he was to die and to be anointed 
 they offered him these gifts : Frank- 
 incense in relation to his divinity ; 
 gold, in relation to the majesty of a 
 king, and myrrh to his death, the 
 cause of life. Moreover, gold denotes 
 that worship, which is preferred be- 
 
 Bead Cl:k..'l<VZ.. 
 
EPHREM ON THE GOSPEL. 37 
 
 fore gold, is returned to its Lord: 
 myrrh and incense signify that he is 
 the physician and binds up the wounds 
 and fractures of Adam. 
 Cf. Bar-Hebraeus in loc. 
 
 .T*&k^.i oonl.i vyt^ v^hocaa 
 
 Gold as to a king, and myrrh as to 
 Him who is about to die for the world, 
 and frankincense as to God. 
 
 Bar-Salibi (or is it Loftus ?) has not understood the meaning 
 of the worship which was made to gold (probably, as Mosinger 
 suggests, to the golden calf), and has explained it to mean that 
 worship is preferred before gold (r<lsaoo ."i ^.To.l i^A^.t^o). Other- 
 wise he follows Ephrem closely. The mystical interpretations of 
 the gold, myrrh and frankincense (in this order in Western texts) 
 go back to a very early time, and are given by many of the early 
 fathers. Especially note Irenaeus (ed. Mass. 184). 
 
 " Myrrham quidem, quod ipse erat, qui pro mortali humano genere more- 
 retur et sepeliretur : Aurum vero, quoniam Bex, cujus Regni finis non est : 
 Thus vero, quoniam Deus, etc." 
 
 In connexion with the account of the coming of the Magi, note 
 that, according to the Syrian commentators, it was the opinion of 
 Mar Ephrem that the Magi came to Bethlehem two years after 
 the birth of Christ. And the question arises as to whether they 
 deduced this opinion from the Commentary on the Gospel or from 
 other parts of Mar Ephrem's writings. That such was the opinion 
 of Ephrem is certain from such statements as the following from 
 his Hymn on the Nativity (ed. Lamy, ii. p. 495) : 
 
 ^O't&.l CD.li*.l ^^H^ AOZ. l<llX. 
 
 etc. 
 
38 EXTRACTS FROM THE COMMENTARY OF 
 
 i.e. In the second year from the birth of our Saviour 
 The Magi rejoiced, 
 The Pharisees were sad. 
 
 But the arrangement of the text in the Commentary shews that 
 not only did Ephrem hold this view that the visit of the Magi was 
 later than that of the shepherds, but that Tatian held something 
 like the same opinion ; for the text interposes the presentation of 
 Christ in the temple between the story of the shepherds and the 
 arrival of the Magi ; and in the Arabic Harmony the latter in- 
 cident not only begins a fresh chapter but is introduced by a 
 significant post haec. So that we may say that Ephrem was 
 invited to hold the opinion by the arrangement of the text 
 upon which he was commenting, in which the Magi are posterior 
 to the shepherds, and where the interval of two years would be 
 suggested by the statement in Matt. ii. 16 that Herod slew all the 
 children from two years and under according to the time that he 
 had accurately enquired from the Magi. 
 
 Let us now see what the later commentators say on the point : 
 first of all we have the testimony of Bar-Salibi. 
 
 Bar-Salibi tells us as follows (sec. Loftum) : 
 
 i.e. " He said, From two years old and under, because he enquiring of the 
 Wise-men, they answered him. It was two years since the star appeared unto 
 us ; therefore said the Lord Ephraim and Eusebius, that the Wise-men came 
 in the second year of our Lord's nativity. And the Lord John [i.e. Chrysos- 
 tom] and St Cyril say that the star appeared two years before, and that the 
 Wise-men tarried long before they came in the way*." 
 
 Bar-Hebraeus is not very different, though he adds somewhat 
 to the list of authorities : 
 
 .■Ua^.i ^.-voi dcoa o^T^* K'-ioiwt.a vyi&o KLlci^ 
 
 ^^1^ i^is.i ^T^sai<' .scka^^ ^TJsao ^^ii&rf ^ijsao 
 )a.Ma Amt-1 .._cucno >lx.ioi<l^ ^ajCuxsor^ .1& ^^ix. 
 
 i.e. And St John [Chrysostom] and Cyril say that they came when he 
 was a babe and wrapped in swaddling-clothes, from the fact that the star led 
 them before he was bom ; and Eusebius and Epiphanius and Mar Ephrem 
 
 1 Loftus, p. 71. 
 
EPHREM ON THE GOSPEL. 
 
 39 
 
 and Mar Jacob say that after two years, when they brought him up to 
 Jerusalem and when they were at Bethlehem, the Magi came. 
 
 The question then is whether Ephrem says definitely in his 
 Commentary what is attributed to him by the later writers and 
 what is certainly found elsewhere in his works. And in answer to 
 this question we may say that not only is it involved in Ephrem's 
 interpretation that the visit of the Magi was at a later period 
 than that of the shepherds, but we also find that at a subsequent 
 place in the Commentary he reverts to the destruction of the 
 children by Herod and says that Christ was two years old at the 
 time. The reference will be found at p. 40 of Mbsinger in the 
 words: 'Sed cum duorum esset annorum hoc ei facere (sc. occi- 
 dere) cogitarant cum suo principe Herode.' 
 
 Mosinger, p. 32. 
 
 Matt. ii. 16. Herodes nescivit, qua 
 ratione earn exploraret, oboaecatus 
 enim aemulatione ad cognitionem 
 pervenire nequivit : 
 
 Licet haec omnia novisset, tamen 
 aemulatione inebriatus eum cognos- 
 cendo impar fuit. 
 
 Mbsinger, p. 34. 
 
 Matt. ii. 18. Scriptum est enim : 
 Mortua est Rachel stadio unoadintroi- 
 tum in Ephrata quod est Bethlehem. 
 
 Quumque Samuel Sauli signum daret, 
 quando unxit eum regem super 
 Israi,el, dixit ei: Ecce, occurrent tibi 
 tres viri in Zelzach apud sepulchrum 
 Rachelis in conflnibus Benjamin. 
 
 Bar-Salibi in loc. 
 
 i.e. (sec. Loftum, p. 62) " It is the 
 nature of Envy to blind the under- 
 standing so as not to discern reason.'' 
 
 Bar-§alibi in loc. 
 
 .Aoi<13e1 A^K'ccmz. xsnr^ 
 
 T^^^ VC3 ^i*>V,^ K'ca.i 
 
 cosoom^is? 
 
 cnias 
 
 ^ re^jjasi^ t^aisa (^ikna 
 
 .>i.M.A iuxja ^co.t ^i^K* 
 
 which Loftus renders as follows : 
 
 Samuel said unto Saul, Three men 
 are to meet thee in Tsaltsaoh near 
 Rachel's sepulchre in the border of 
 Benjamin ; Rachel was buried a Per- 
 sian day's journey from Ephrata 
 which is in Bethlehem. 
 
 [Corr. ' a Persian day's journey ' to 
 ' a parasang.'] 
 
40 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE COMMENTARY OP 
 
 Mosinger, p. 35. 
 
 Persecutionem passus est David a 
 Saul, sicut et Filius ejus ab Herode. 
 Interfecti sunt saoerdotes propter 
 David, et infantes propter Dominum 
 nostrum; ex sacerdotibus Abiathar 
 liber evasit, sicut Joannes ex infanti- 
 bus. In Abiathar ablatum est saoer- 
 dotium domus Heli et in Joanne 
 ablata est propbetia filiorum Jacob. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 21 r.). 
 .oo.ioicn ^ K'is Ar^^ \^i^ 
 
 ^.j^ A!\^ r^.l<xLi*0 ..V0.1 
 . . . K'.ia-L. ^.sa ^.\ wa-»o 
 ^ 1 mQ m. no ..I \ s A\ I ra.i 
 
 i.e. David was persecuted by Saul, 
 as also was the Son by Herod. The 
 priests were slain on account of David, 
 and the children on account of our 
 Lord. Of the priests Abiathar es- 
 caped, and of the children John.. ..In 
 Abiathar the priesthood of the house 
 of Eh came to nought; and in John 
 the prophecy of the sons of Jacob 
 
 Mosinger, p. 36. 
 Matt. ii. 23. Et quod dicit : JVazo- 
 raenus vocahitur, quia nimirum virga 
 Hebraice Nazor sonat et propheta 
 eum vocat filium Nazor (fllium virgae) 
 quoniam revera virgae filius est. Sed 
 Evangelista, quod in Nazareth nutri- 
 tus est, huic simile esse videns dixit, 
 Nazoraenus vocabitur. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 38 r.). 
 scth\ .cn-^ajpo •^'^ -1 - 
 
 Cod, adds OV&a:i ex 
 
EPHREM ON THE GOSPEL. 
 
 41 
 
 Ephrem plays on the same string 
 in his Hymns to the Virgin Mary 
 (ed. Lamy, ii. p. 539) : 
 
 redtoo 7&*Tsa ^ocD 
 
 .^t&o 
 
 citxsa 
 
 
 red 
 
 saxM uai 
 
 ^r^ 
 
 i.e. Mary was the Vine, and there 
 sprang from her the Nazarene branch, 
 according as it is written ; that he 
 might fulfil the mystery of the pro- 
 phecy, he was brought up in Nazareth, 
 that he might fulfil all things. 
 
 i.e. It was known and he set it 
 down from the grace of the Spirit. 
 Again, a rod in Hebrew is called 
 Nazor, and the city was called Naza- 
 reth, a rod ; the passage of Isaiah, 
 There shall sprout a rod from his root, 
 is written in Hebrew Nazor. 
 
 Bar-Salibi in loc. 
 i.e. ' When Matthew saw that Christ 
 came and dwelt in Nazareth he ex- 
 pounded this of Esaiah, A Branch 
 shall sprout out. He shall be called a 
 Nazaren : and he was called a Naza- 
 ren from Nazareth, that is, r^aieu 
 one sprouting out, from i^iiaieu 
 a sprout; so they are expounded in 
 the Hebrew tongue.' (Loftus, p. 79.) 
 
 Of. Bar-Hebraeus in loc. 
 
 rtlai^.i ^cn r^^icD ^sna 
 
 i.e. And Mar Ephrem says : That 
 
 the rod, i.e. the branch is called in 
 Hebrew Nosor; this is therefore the 
 prophecy that ' A rod shall come out 
 of the root of Jesse,' and it is hence 
 that he is called Nazarene. 
 
 The dependence of the later commentators on Ephrem is 
 involved in their statements as well as in the express ascription 
 by Bar-Hebraeus. 
 
 To the foregoing may be added the marginal note quoted by 
 Zahn {Tatian, p. 46) from Cod. Vat. Syr. 268, as described by 
 Adler in N. T. Verss. Syrr. p. 81 : 
 
42 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE COMMENTARY OF 
 
 
 
 
 .r^ia&xM coio^OJ ^f<'ia^. 
 
 
 >cn 
 
 
 i.e. [The prophecy that he shall be called a Nazarene] is from an 
 unknown book. But according to the holy Mar Ephrem it is the passage 
 that there shall come a rod out of the stem of Jesse. This rod is in Hebrew 
 called Nosorah. 
 
 Mosinger, p. 40. 
 
 Matt. iii. 9. Ex lapidibus istis 
 Deus potest suscitare filios Abra- 
 hami, i.e. ex adoratoribus lapidum et 
 lignorum. Sicut et dicit : Patrem 
 multarum gentium feci te. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 40 v.). 
 r^^nelftl .I'.l^o ^ ore* 
 
 •vvov 
 
 Mosinger, p. 42. 
 
 Dominus nosterdextram ejus sump- 
 sit et super caput suum posuit. 
 
 i.e. Or from the worshippers of 
 stones and stocks. I have set thee 
 for a father to the multitude of the 
 nations. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 43 r.). 
 
 .cniM.i otiz.i A:^ ca.T>(<'7iflo 
 
 i.e. Others say : that he laid -his 
 hand tremblingly on the head of his 
 Lord. 
 
 It is not easy to determine whether this is Tatian or Ephrem ; 
 but I incline to think that it is the former. As will be seen, the 
 story was known to Isho'dad, and it will also be found in Bar- 
 Salibi, though Bar-Salibi does not know from whence it is taken. 
 ' From whence, says he, is it known that John put his hand on the 
 head of Christ, when no such thing is written in the Gospel?' 
 And we say that it is from the Old Testament, from the pas- 
 sage where the Lord said to Moses, 'I will cover thee with my 
 hand,' and from this, that ' Moses put his hands upon Aaron and 
 anointed him and consecrated him.' 
 
 The laying on of hands is implied also in the statement made 
 a little lower down that 'per Joannem enim propheticam et 
 sacerdotalem dignitatem accepit.' 
 
EPHREM ON THE GOSPEL. 
 
 43 
 
 The Maronite breviary (ed. 1665) shews an acquaintance with 
 the statement that John laid his hand on the head of Christ, as 
 well as with the previously quoted description of John as the one 
 who betrothed the Church to Christ. In the festival of the 
 Decollation of the Baptist we are told 
 
 =^.1 
 
 
 etc. 
 
 .cn.T>(<' ^vamAi rdsau^.i aiisn crubi ^ir^ 
 
 i.e. And he betrothed to the Son of God the Holy Church, to Him who 
 was willing and humbled Himself: and he put his right hand on His head 
 at His baptism ; the Lord of the World bowed His head beneath the hand of 
 John. 
 
 (The sentences are probably due to Ephrem.) 
 
 MSsinger, p. 43. Isho'dad (f. 43 r.). 
 
 Quumque ex lumine super aquas .icnw.l vyrti' r<':i-uuMO 
 
 exorto et ex voce de caelo delapso, \ 
 
 ..^tr^ K'icacu ,_jnoa\^.i 
 wall's, ^a.&^K' ^.licu Ap^o 
 r^a\(\Li4« OAVMBti^o .i<wicku 
 ^i.WiTSa.i rtllMOTi K're^ju^s 
 
 i.e. And straightway, as the Dia- 
 tessaron testifies, light shone forth, 
 and over the Jordan was spread a 
 vail of white clouds, and there ap- 
 peared many hosts of spiritual beings 
 who were praising God in the air; 
 and quietly Jordan stood stUl from its 
 flowing, its waters being at rest ; and a 
 sweet odour was wafted from thence. 
 
 •t 
 
 ■ \ .X. ^mcuaa 
 
 [Note that the Syriac Lexico- 
 graphers (Payne Smith ' col. 1584) 
 connect the name Jordan with the 
 shining of light, so that they betray 
 their knowledge of the legend by 
 equating 
 
 Cf. Mt. iv. 16 (pas dveretKev avTois 
 and Nestle's note in Gott. Oelehrte 
 Anzeigen, 1894. 2. p. 85.] 
 
'•M 
 
 44 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE COMMENTARY OF 
 
 From the reference to the light which shone at the Jordan, it 
 was at least a probable hypothesis that the text of Tatian had 
 some traces of the peculiar amplifications of the account of the 
 Baptism which are current in early copies, versions and fathers. 
 This hypothesis is now rendered reasonably certain by the direct 
 testimony of Isho'dad. It is not necessary to suppose that the 
 whole of the extract which we have given from Isho'dad is from 
 Tatian. Probably the quotation is contained in the first clause, 
 or, at most, in the words : 
 
 Mosinger, p. 40. 
 
 Ad puteum Eliezer Rebeccam, ad 
 puteum Jacob Kachelem, ad puteum 
 Moyses Sephoram desponsavit. Qui 
 omnes typi erant Domini nostri, qui 
 ecclesiam in baptismo Jordanis spon- 
 sam sibi fecit. Quemadmodum Eliezer 
 ad fontem stans monstravit Rebeccae 
 dominum ejus Isaac, qui tunc tem- 
 poris in agrum prodibat, ut ei obviam 
 veniret, ita et Joannes de fonte 
 Jordanis fluvii Salvatorem nostrum 
 monstravit. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 250 v.). 
 
 oOkOM r<lii&i.i (i3iOi&:a ^ 
 ruajjLS r^wrc' ,i& .n wOiir^lA 
 
 m-*o_M i<'<^x.2b..i cbio.xsa 
 K'^rti'.i .cni I %*»i r^^uA 
 
 . A 1 wiA joQns t "xasn v^Lsx^ 
 va^jas rtf'JLSo.i r^i^ A.^o 
 
 ^lucu isksa r<*'i'.ra9.i r^icos 
 
 Mar Ephrem, shewing that the 
 type possesses great likeness to the 
 reality, says : Eliezer, indeed, who 
 betrothed Kebecca, shewed to her 
 Isaac when he came to meet them in 
 
EPHREM ON THE GOSPEL. 
 
 45 
 
 the field ; and John who betrothed 
 the Church, shewed to her the bride- 
 groom her spouse who came to her at 
 the river Jordan. Bliezer betrothed 
 Rebecca at the well of water ; at the 
 well of water Jacob betrothed Rachel: 
 and at the well of water Moses be- 
 trothed Zippora ; and at the river of 
 water John betrothed the Church. 
 
 Bar-Salibi abbreviates the passage 
 as follows : i.e. (Loftus, p. 88) By 
 water were made the Espousals of 
 Rebecca, of Rachel and Tsiphora, 
 typifying the Water of Baptism by 
 which the Church is espoused. 
 
 It is interesting to notice that Isho'dad, while confessedly 
 transcribing from Ephrem, corrects Ephrem's mistake in making 
 Eliezer stand by the well and point out Isaac to Rebecca. 
 
 M5singer, p. 41. 
 
 Ecoe, hie est agnus Dei, hie est, qui 
 venit, toUere peccata mundi. 
 
 The Commentary belonging to this 
 passage has disappeared, except for 
 the words inserted ' hie est qui venit,' 
 which are explained in Isho'dad : 
 probably Isho'dad's comment is di- 
 rectly from Ephrem, having been lost 
 in the Armenian text. 
 
 It may, of course, be held that the 
 words 'hie est qui venit' are a part 
 of the text of Tatian, and not of the 
 commentary of Ephrem. On p. 43 
 we find again, Ecce venit agnus Dei 
 et is est qui tollit peccata mundi. 
 
 Mosinger, p. 52. 
 
 Factae sunt nuptiae in Cana Gali- 
 laeorum. Et cum Dominus eo veni- 
 ret, dicit ad eum mater : Vinum non 
 habent hie. Dicit ei Jesus : Quid est 
 mihi et tibi, mulier? Non mihi 
 tempus advenit : id est, ego non vi 
 eis me ingero, sed ipsi animadvertant. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 250 v.) 
 following the previous quotation : 
 
 
 cnl oocD ^lAjaa^a.i A:^ 
 
 r^h\r^ 
 
 .■V.& 
 
 vw(^ col 
 
 i.e. For this is clear that what he 
 said 'Behold the Lamb of God' was 
 because they were expecting him : 
 and when he came, he was pointing 
 him out as with fingers to them that 
 were near. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 252 v.). 
 
 ^ mA Ktocn .v i*aaTi.i 
 .iSL&j.i .-uiv^ r<h\^i Goisa 
 oA .Al^ r^.tos A;v.a .^^ 
 
46 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THK COMMENTARY OF 
 
 vinum defecisse et omnes bibere ex- 
 pectent ; idque dixit, ut donum suum 
 in oculis eoriim gloriosum appareret. 
 
 MSsinger, p. 53. 
 
 Et quum mater hoc ei dixisset, 
 respondit Jesus : Non mihi tempus 
 advenit : id est, certe advenit. 
 
 
 K'oaArC.'i oohvaeoosn 
 
 Mar Ephrem the great says: that 
 she had heard from him that he was 
 about to work a miracle, and there- 
 fore he answered her when she per- 
 suaded him that the wine had failed. 
 What have I to do with thee, woman? 
 Certainly it is not proper for me to go 
 to them by force, but let them all 
 feel that the wine has failed, and let 
 them ask to drink in order that the 
 gift of God may be magnified in their 
 sight. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 253 r.). 
 
 Mosinger, p. 57. 
 Noe super altare, in monte Corduaeorum exstruotum, sacrificium obtulit. 
 
 The passage is certainly from a Syriac hand, (cf. Peshito of 
 Gen. viii. 4), and can easily be restored to its primitive form. 
 Mosinger refers to a similar statement in Ephrem's Commentary 
 on Genesis (Vol. i. p. 152). We may add Ephr. (ed. Lamy, i. 711) 
 Hymni de Crudfiieione : 
 
 1 Cod. .*5L2a. ^ Cod. »ClVx.l<JO. 
 
EPHKEM ON THE GOSPEL. 
 
 47 
 
 ^CDcLsscnl ^\ "^ 
 
 ■ ■ . . ^iT.o •jjOJ •saox eMl 
 
 i.e. From the moiintains of Kardu 
 She has gathered flowers ; 
 From thence come Noah and Shem, etc. 
 
 Mosinger, p. 59. 
 
 Tota nocte laboravimus, quibus 
 verbis doctrina Prophetarum signifi- 
 catur, de excelso missa in mundum 
 qui per mare repraesentatua est. 
 Duae naves sunt circumcisio et 
 praeputium. Et quod innuerunt sociis 
 suis, mysterium est septuaginta 
 duorum discipulorum, quia Apostoli 
 piscaturae et messi non sufficiebant. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 189 v.). 
 
 (1. re:i&\cu) «<UmXa& tire" 
 
 r^.Sa!hS.i rc*ijLi\T..io f^Iai.l 
 cn.l^\cu .coj^xso vobtr^.i 
 
 
 .en 
 
 
 ■ iSIT. 
 
 ^h\a 
 
 The night signifies the teaching of 
 the prophets and the apostles, which is 
 among the people the understanding 
 of which is darkened ; but the teaching 
 falls from on high into the world which 
 is compared with the sea. The two 
 ships are the circumcision and the 
 uncircimicision. The right hand side 
 from ship to ship (?). And that they 
 beckoned to their companions signifies 
 the 72 disciples ; for they were in- 
 adequate for the fishing and the 
 harvest. 
 
 > Cod. reLsnaJooX (sic I). 
 
48 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE COMMENTARY OF 
 
 Note that the comparison between the sea and the worid 
 is a favourite one with Ephrem. The passage is given almost 
 exactly in Isho'dad, and there is an added sentence to interpret 
 the ' right side of the ship ' which seems to have dropped out of 
 the Armenian text, and is in its present form scarcely intelligible 
 in the Syriac. 
 
 M5siiiger, p. 61. 
 
 Matt. ix. 15. Omne illud tempus, 
 quod Dominus noster in hac terra 
 transegit, thalamo comparat et se 
 ipsum sponso. 
 
 Bar-Salibi in loc. 
 
 i.e. (sec. Loftum) Seipsum appellat 
 sponsum, descensum aut durationem 
 suam super terram thalamum. 
 
 Mosinger, p. 63. 
 
 Matt. V. 6. Beatus, qui esurit et 
 sitit justitiam, sicuti dicit ; Non esurit 
 panem, nee sitit aquam, sed esurit et 
 sitit ut audiat verbum Domini. 
 
 The passage quoted is Amos viii. 11, 
 of -which the Peshito text is 
 
 .saoT'wi r^v< r^jaol rtfVn^n 
 
 Mosinger wrongly supposes a refer- 
 ence to Is. xlix. 10. 
 
 The same reference to Amos is 
 implied on p. 44: Eauriit...simulque 
 verbis suis nos docuit in ejusmodi 
 circumstantiis solum verbum Domini 
 nos esurire debere. 
 
 Implied in 
 
 Isho'dad (f 208 r.) 
 
 [on the prodigal son in want]. 
 
 r«li:&& >i 'i.lx.K' .K'ciAr^.i 
 
 : JC..10 
 
 By a defect of blessings, and a depri- 
 vation of the knowledge of God : ' I 
 will send a hunger on the earth, not 
 of bread nor of water, but of hearing, 
 etc' 
 
 Bar-§alibi m loc. 
 
EPHREM ON THE GOSPEL. 49 
 
 (sec. Loftum.) Or for that [hunger] 
 whereby one coveteth the knowledge 
 of God and His doctrine, according to 
 that 'He was hungry not for bread 
 but for the hearing of the word of 
 God.' 
 
 Bar-Hebraeus in loo. 
 lOOctO ^il^t.M ^AtKlX 
 
 .cn 
 
 • •A 00 
 
 .t<taAK'.i rc'itlsa 
 
 i.e. Those who hunger and thirst : 
 viz, after the doctrine of life, as it is 
 written. Who hunger, not for bread, 
 but for the hearing of the word of 
 God. 
 
 Mfisinger, p. 72. Bar-Hebraeus in loc. 
 
 Nolite judicare: h.e. injusto ; ne _~ ...Cl—So.lA* r«'_A 
 judiceinini, h.e. ob injustitiam. ~~ 
 
 .AuKLlKl^ .CD 
 
 Ye shall not judge ; i.e. wickedly ; 
 that ye may not be judged ; i.e. right- 
 eously. 
 
 H. D. 
 
50 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE COMMENTARY OF 
 
 MBsinger, p. 72. 
 
 Matt. vi. 23. Si lurnen, quod in te 
 est, tenehrae sunt; i.e. si per eleemos- 
 jmas, quae lucidae sunt, peccas, 
 quanto magis per pecoata quae ob- 
 tenebrant. Adulterium et blasphemia 
 ex una tantum parte spectari possunt, 
 quia nibil aliud sunt, quam causae 
 transgressionum, eleemosynae autem 
 duplicem habent faciem, quippe quae, 
 si humanae gloriae causa dantur, ad 
 transgressionem perducunt, si autem 
 manus datoris ad fratrem indigentem 
 ex charitate se extendunt, etiam cogi- 
 tationes ad Deum, qui retribuit, 
 pertingent ut Scriptura dicit : Ubi 
 thesauri vestri sunt, ibi erunt et 
 corda vestra. 
 
 The passage is a difficult one, and 
 Mosinger has corrected one of his 
 Mss. from the other, without in- 
 timating what the text was which he 
 found to be unintelligible. The Syriac 
 is fairly clear ; two words seem to be 
 repeated by accident, which we have 
 bracketed, and it is possible that 
 some connecting words may have 
 dropped. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 56 r.). 
 
 x*» .r^a\^\B:t\sn .en ...*cn 
 r<'ia^ .^on (1. K'&ui&XMsa) 
 .r^i'i'^waa.! »,._ociA ^rc* 
 'icnox.s i\sca*^r^ »— -!^ 
 
 i.e. Mar Ephrem. If thy light 
 which is in thee, etc. If namely 
 thou sinnest by thy alms which is 
 illuminating, i.e. justifying, how 
 much more by the sin which is 
 darkening. For adultery and blas- 
 phemy have only one side, that 
 they are sinful ; but ahns has two 
 sides. If it is given in human vain- 
 glory, it makes the man to sin : but 
 if the hand of the giver is stretched 
 out to the needy, his thought is 
 extended towards God the recom- 
 penser ; this is what is meant by 
 ' Where thy treasure is there also, etc.' 
 
EPHREM ON THE GOSPEL. 
 
 51 
 
 M5singer, p. 74. 
 
 Matt. viii. 20..,, Quia iUe vidit mor- 
 tuos surgentea et mutos loquentes, 
 secum cogitavit, ei cui talia opera 
 sunt, multum etiam esse argenti, 
 ideoque dixit : Veniam, et sequar te. 
 Propterea responsum accepit : Vul- 
 pibus sunt habitacula, ei autem nee 
 id est, quod habent vulpes, scilicet 
 habitaculum. 
 
 Mosinger, p. 91 
 
 Nolite ait possidere av/mm, ne in 
 vobis Judas inveniatur et id quod 
 Achar vita privavit et Giezi lepra 
 obtexit. 
 
 Imitated by Isho'dad (f. 58 v.). 
 
 .r^cD T&^ K'ocn i -1 cin*aa 
 KlSkSaei ,K'^o^T^ .ns.aa\ 
 
 ^ 1 icaA.i ^ca-3 ^Av^K* 
 
 i<'i\^^.T> K'^o.i (<'A&(<'i 
 
 i.e. He was sick with the love of 
 money, like Judas : for he supposed 
 that the person who receives from 
 our Lord power to work miracles, 
 will also gather from thence plenty 
 of money.... In destitution I siupass 
 the beasts and the birds ; for they 
 have certain places in which they 
 can hide ; but I have not even a 
 certain dwelling place. 
 
 Abbrev. by Bar-Salibi. 
 «<A.l rtiLscDJi ^.,0 1 nh\ 
 
 ^-&-2k. 
 
 .rc.ioca«o 
 
 OOGO-l 
 
 i.e. (Loftus) alio mode sic: nee 
 possidehitis aunvm, ne similes essent 
 Acano, Gehezi et Judae. 
 
 4—2 
 
52 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE COMMENTARY OF 
 
 Mosinger, p. 91. 
 
 Matt. X. 10. Et quod dixit: Virgam, 
 in signum nimirum regiminis et 
 humilitatis. Non baculum quia non 
 ad gregem furientem pascendum exi- 
 erunt, sicut quondam Moyses. 
 
 MSsinger, p. 97. 
 Matt. X. 29. Duo passeres asse 
 veneunt ; duo, non unus. Ostendere 
 voluit vilitatem passeris. Quae enim 
 majoris pretii sunt, singula veneunt, 
 quae vero vilia, multa simul quasi 
 olera venundantur. 
 
 Mosinger, p. 97. 
 Matt. X. 34. Nolite putare, quod ve- 
 nt mittere pacem in terra. Ubi ergo est 
 illud, quod omnibus dicitur, Christus 
 venit, ut pacificaret id quod in caelo, 
 et id quod in terra est. Oerto Domi- 
 nus pacem praedicavit, ut et Apos- 
 tolus dicit ; Fecit nobis pacem : et 
 
 Bar-Salibi in loc. 
 rt'iirCo t^A^o. \ i — z_&.i 
 
 i.e. And no scrip, a sign of simplicity 
 and mark of humility; and no club, 
 for they were not going forth like 
 Moses, to feed flocks. 
 
 Isho'dad (f 198 v.). 
 
 .ioort^ ^jLa.iv^a ^i.^^ 
 ^'i&^ ■T'anwa KLdcu ~i^o 
 
 i^^ ^ «\ iK* .(1. K'ctMSa) 
 
 i.e. Matthew said that two sparrows 
 are sold for a farthing, where Luke 
 has, five sparrows are sold for two 
 farthings. He shews the cheapness 
 of sparrows, for those things that 
 are superior in value are sold one by 
 one, but those of less value similarly 
 are sold like vegetables. 
 
 Imitated by Bar-Hebraeus in loc. 
 
 relijaa.1 ^\snr< ^.%..x.\r< 
 
 Ajeas.i .^ciu K'nco r^^sai 
 .^crAo .i<:saix..'i ocn r<*\i\T .i 
 
EPHREM ON THE GOSPEL. 
 
 53 
 
 alio loco, Qui eum receperunt, pax 
 super eos. Verum alia ex parte non 
 misit pacem, propterea quod fideles 
 ab infidelibus per eum separati sunt. 
 Veni separare liomvnem a patre, etc. 
 Separantur, ait, mente, quia in fide 
 nunquam recte oogitant, quum unus 
 sic Deum colit, alius vero aliter. 
 
 . . . ,__Cial i^llr^ ^cnu j1».t 
 
 i.e. Some say. How does this agree 
 with the passage, He shall speak 
 peace with the Gentiles ; or with this, 
 He is the Lord of peace ; or this. He 
 is our peace ; or this. My peace I 
 give unto you ? 
 
 Isho'dad, f. 66 r. 
 
 t^^K*.! en \ ^.1 ^CD ^CD 
 r^Lsa ^1 T 1.1 (1. K'AxK') 
 
 t 
 
 1 I X. 
 
 >A 
 
 oooo 
 
 <\^&^r<'.l Aa. relir^* .rt'ooo 
 r<lA ^sa w* 1 sa-^'oo-jsa 
 r^m-sr<'.l . . . r^\-'M..sai-Sn 
 
 po-^ ^...OVm^ r«liJLao 
 
 . a^jOCQJt cos r<':i K'^Um .1 
 
 i.e. This passage 'I am not come 
 to send peace on the earth but a 
 sword,' how does it agree with the 
 words. He came to reconcile all that 
 is in heaven and that is in earth... 
 and 'he is our peace'. ..and 'to those 
 that receive him, there is peace.' But 
 that believers were separated from 
 
54 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE COMMENTARY OF 
 
 Mosinger, p. 99. 
 
 Matt. xi. 3. Tu es qui venturiis es, 
 an alium esaspectamus. Nequaquam 
 dubitavit de eo. Qui enim in deserto 
 viam paravit, nee cunctatus est in 
 ventre exultare, qui in baptismo 
 nullam sibi gloriam attribuit, quia 
 dioebat; Me oportet a te baptizari; 
 et, Ecce agnus Dei, hie est, qui toUit 
 peccata mundi ete....Misit eos ad 
 Christum in hune finem ut miraeula 
 conspieati in iide ejus confirmarentur. 
 
 Traces of the influenee of the pas- 
 sage may also be found in Isho'dad. 
 
 unbelievers... that the fathers should 
 be divided against the children, be- 
 cause they did not believe in Christ ; 
 and children shall contend with their 
 parents, because they have left the 
 worship of their fathers. 
 
 The passage is imitated by Bar- 
 Hebraeus in loo. 
 
 K'OCD .^.V* f<ll.l ClA 
 
 r^'cno . . . . 1 mCU ocn coA 
 
 rtf^aci^ ^.la .icnoo o.i.&isa 
 
 KVoAr^.i cnVMre' cu*ocD.i 
 
 i.e. It was not that John did not 
 know him... whereas he had already 
 testified before the multitudes that 
 he is the Lamb of God... to confirm 
 his disciples who did not believe, he 
 sent them to him. 
 
 Mosinger, p. 101. 
 
 Matt. xi. 7. Quid exdstis videre in 
 deserto? wrundinem vento agitatam? 
 i.e. num Joannes timebat persecute-, 
 res et ab omni vento fleetebatur, ut 
 aliquando diceret, 'Ecce agnus Dei' 
 et postea nuneium ad eum mitteret, 
 'Tu es qui ventxirus es, an ahum 
 exspeotamus 1 ' 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 67 v.). 
 
 .... .^.dt^&vso rCMO^ ^Jsa.i 
 r<Uioi ^.1 r^ \\n ^osa.vs.l 
 JLStA ^iixjsso .^^t^ivsa 
 
 K'Tsar^ ^vao .en i i ^,\s 
 ^V-30 ..X..10 GoA v^x-a 
 
EPHREH ON THE GOSPEL. 
 
 55 
 
 nhMr^ 
 
 .onl .nix. 
 
 Mosmger, p. 111. 
 
 Matt, xii 32. Et quod dicit : Ne- 
 que hie neque illic dimittetur ei, 
 quia Dominus peccata multorum con- 
 donat et baptismus ejus poenam cre- 
 dentibus gratis dimittit. 
 
 Mdsinger, p. 112. 
 
 Aut de illo tempore quo in terra 
 ambulavit, id dixit, non autem de 
 futuro. Viderunt eum came indutum 
 et multi hac de causa de divinitate 
 ejus dubitarunt, sed de Spiritu prae- 
 judicatae opiniones non eiant 
 
 In his autem diebus ex inscientia 
 Uasphemant. Omnes ergo nati pos- 
 sunt ad poenitentiam pervenire, quare 
 ei qui non potest poenitentiam agere, 
 melius erat, si natus non foisset. 
 Omnibus per poenitentiam est re- 
 missio, sive scientes sive inscientes 
 peccaverunt. 
 
 i.& In the passage What went 
 ye out into the wilderness to see? 
 A reed shaken by the wind.. .A man 
 who in the likeness of a reed shaken 
 and bent to every side, and easily 
 changed in his opinion by those who 
 meet him; so that at one time he 
 calls him 'the Lamb, eta' and at 
 another sends to him to know 'Art 
 thou he that should come?' 
 
 Isho'dad, f. 198 v. 
 .mt .1 A^ .rOca r^sa\&.9 
 ar»n-iT. r^^:iOSa^saa ^K'o 
 
 Mar Ephrem. Neither in this 
 world; because our Lord freely re- 
 mitted many sins, and also in baptism 
 he remits it finely. 
 
 Isho'dad, f. 198 v. 
 r^iusQ (^.ica.i .^ru.! ^.ito 
 
 ..«\\s'Ba T^i.^.! r^r^^^» 
 .dCDoi^ ^^i\r^ i^VtiU^^oso 
 
 .^ixsa in twan\ ^_ocaA 
 
56 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE COMMENTARY OF 
 
 Mosinger, p. 113. 
 
 Ne putaveritis Deum non dimittere 
 si poenitentiam agunt, tali enim blas- 
 phemia Satanas eos ad poenitentiam 
 redire non permittit. 
 
 Mosinger, p. 116. 
 
 Luke X. 18. Videbam ego Saianam, 
 quod decidit quasi fidmen de ooelo, 
 non ao si in ooelo fuisset 
 
 Non cecidit de ooelis, quia et fulmen, 
 quod a nube gignitur, de ooelo cadere 
 non potest. (Jur ergo dixit : De coelis 
 cecidit veluti fulmen ? Quia subito 
 ictu oculi Satanas viotoriosae cruci 
 
 subjectus est 
 
 Sicut fulmen e loco suo egressum 
 nunquam revertitur, ita et Satanas 
 
 1 Cod. 
 
 i.e. And we must know that this 
 word is spoken concerning that time, 
 and not of our day. For many saw 
 him clad in a body, and many doubted 
 concerning him; but concerning the 
 Spirit they had no means of supposing 
 anything. But the blasphemers of 
 our own day do not blaspheme with- 
 out knowledge, etc. Repentance is 
 possible to every one that is born, 
 and for every sin, whether in know- 
 ledge or in ignorance. 
 
 Isho'dad(f. 199 r.). 
 ■nax. kL^ ocn.i ^.n oX 
 
 ■nai. r£i rtiC&.iA^ i^cns.i 
 
 i.e. Not that he does not remit 
 sin to them if they repent. But in 
 this blasphemy Satan does not suffer 
 them to repent. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 196 v.). 
 
 
 
EPHREM ON THE GOSPEL. 
 
 57 
 
 cecidit et in suum principatum nun- 
 quam restituetur. 
 
 f^i \.<wo rdXAcn 
 
 \^ .en l\y\ 
 
 ax. 
 
 .V^CD 
 
 i.e. Mar Ephrem. I saw Satan 
 that he fell like lightning ; he did not 
 fall from heaven : for as the lightning 
 suddenly and in the twinkUng of the 
 eye Satan fell under the victory of 
 the Cross. And as lightning goes 
 forth and does not return to its place 
 80 also Satan fell from his power and 
 does not rise again. 
 
 Mosinger, p. 121. 
 
 Luke xi. 24. Forro dici potest, dia- 
 bolum Israelem ad instar illius homi- 
 nis possedisse et possidere. Quando 
 in Aegypto habitabant et potestati 
 Pharaonis subditi erant, ille immun- 
 dus apud eos erat. Et quum Deus 
 eis salvatorem misisset, qui eos edu- 
 ceret, ille immundus aufiigit et sanati 
 sunt. Misit verbum suum et sanavit 
 et liberavit eos a perditione. 
 
 Isho'dad, f. 198 r. 
 ^ocn.n ix'AiT I -1 >X i<U*oi 
 
 cd&lAj99 ^oA iruL.i .:v>o.i 
 (1. K^o) ^o .^.ttarc" .jtf r^ta 
 
 For Mar Ephrem says: that the 
 evil spirit which was in the people in 
 Egypt in their subjection, fled away 
 from them at the hand of Moses their 
 Saviour. As also David said. He 
 sent his word and healed them. And 
 when it had gone about, it returned 
 again taking seven other spirits worse 
 than itself. 
 
58 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE COMMENTARY OP 
 
 Mosinger, p. 121. 
 Luke xi. 24. lUe igitur immundus 
 ex eis expvlsus transivit^er looa a/nda 
 i.e. per gentes, ut inveniret requiem. 
 
 Mosinger, p. 122. 
 Luke xi. 24. Quaesivit et invenit 
 sibi requiem in populo Israel. 
 
 M5singer, p. 122. 
 Luke xi. 26. Porro isti septem, 
 qui in eo habitaverunt, Uli sunt, de 
 quibus Jeremias dixit: Concepit et 
 peperit septem. Inflatus est venter 
 ejus; peperit unum vitulum in de- 
 serto, duos vitulos Jeroboami et simu- 
 lacrum quatuor facierum Manassis. 
 
 Mosinger, p. 129. 
 Luke iv. 24. Non est propheta ac- 
 ceptus in patria. Non recepit Ana- 
 thot Jeremiam, non Thesbi Eliam, 
 non Abemahul Elisaeum, non Rama 
 Samuelem, nee populus recepit Moy- 
 sen, nee Israel Dominum. 
 
 Bar-Hebraeus vn loc. 
 f^snaOoLs en .K'^o'i^Kls 
 
 In places, i.e. amongst the heathen 
 peoples. 
 
 Bar-Hebraeus m loc. 
 
 .ckttOacn 1^.1 re^.ieu ^cu 
 
 With the unbelieving Jews. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 198 v.). 
 i«.l\or< .r<^s-iT di.iJU )d1 
 
 rd»l\. 
 
 .>A.a-1CU.l 
 
 i^o 
 
 Those seven, namely, of which 
 Jeremiah spoke: She conceived and 
 brought forth seven : for she brought 
 forth the calves, one in the desert 
 and the two of Jeroboam, and the 
 image of four faces of Manasseh. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 188 v.). 
 ■L»r<V\*anT. ruo ^..oooaMK'^ 
 
 i.e. As Moses was not accepted 
 by the Congregation, with 10,000 
 miracles that he did amongst them; 
 nor Samuel by the men of Bama, nor 
 Elisha by the men of Mehola, nor 
 Jeremiah by the men of Anaoth. 
 
EPHBEM ON THE GOSPEL. 
 
 59 
 
 MSsiiiger, p. 134. 
 
 John tL 12. Golliffite fntgmanta 
 eoenat, ne quid ex vis penal, et ne 
 ciedant, ad speciem tantum eum hoc 
 fecisse. Cum enim fragmenta nnum 
 alteruiuTe diem conservaverint, eis 
 persuasum erit, Dominum hoc vere 
 
 MSsinger, p. 140. 
 
 John iv. 5. Dominus noster quasi 
 venator ad puteum venit. 
 
 The figure is a &Yourite one with 
 Ephrem: cf. Senn. De Dmn..nostro 
 (ed. Lamy, i. p. 178). 
 
 .10^.1 
 
 a^a 
 
 ivaU.I (^OCB «^.'i», 
 
 i.& He became a hunter that he 
 might descend and catch living men 
 who had perished. CC also ed. Kom. 
 iii396. 
 
 Mosinger, p. 141. 
 
 John ir. Ab initio itaque coUoquii 
 personam soam ei non manifestam 
 fecit, sed primo Judaeum, tunc pro- 
 phetam et postiemo Christum se ei 
 revelavit. Per gradus ex online usque 
 ad nltimum gradum eam dedivxit. 
 Primo enim vidit iit hominem sitien- 
 tem, dein ut Judaexim, postea, ut 
 jwophetam, denique ut Deum. Ho- 
 mini sitienti persuadere voluit, a 
 Judaeo abhorruit, doctorem interro- 
 gsvit, a propheta correpta est, et 
 Christum adoravit. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 80 r.). 
 
 r^soeu r^ii&ix. 'C^Acn .i& 
 
 ie. In order that it might not be 
 supposed that he had made use of 
 ms^cal phantasy; but that, when 
 the remainder had been kept for a 
 day or two, they might behere that 
 he had done it truly. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 258 ▼.). 
 k^somI ^isaX cAtr^ .i&o 
 
 •lO 
 
 9^.1 
 
 i.e. While they went away to buy 
 bread, because he wished to go a 
 hunting by the weU. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 259 v.). 
 .^.lOX. V^ Wn ■\i\n 
 
60 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE COMMENTARY OF 
 
 Mosinger, p. 141. 
 
 John iv. 42. Quum haec miracula 
 vidissent et mirabilem et stupendam 
 revelationem mulieri Samaritanae 
 factam audiissent, occasionem iiri- 
 sionis Judaeis praeripuerunt, qui 
 dioturi erant, in professione mulieris 
 adulterae fidem eorum esse fimdatam. 
 Propterea midieri dixerunt : Non 
 postmodwn propter verba tua credimus 
 in eum, sed quia audivimus nos doc- 
 trinam ejus et vidimus opera ejus, 
 quia Beus est, et cognavim/M, eum pro- 
 fecto ease Christum, verum. Etenim 
 super scientia nostra fundamenta 
 fidei nostri poni oportuit. 
 
 r^CD^.i vyi<'^CD ^r^i<lXr<' 
 
 vypco 
 
 Cod. ^rOL^ 
 
 Lit. 
 
 Little by little he revealed himself 
 to the Samaritan woman ; first by his 
 thirst, and then as a Jew, and then 
 as the Christ; from degree to degree 
 he led her and set her on the highest 
 degree. She saw him first as a thirsty 
 man, then as a Jew, then as a pro- 
 phet, and then as God. And also it 
 is she who would have persuaded him 
 as a thirsty man, who would have 
 shrunk^ as from a Jew, and she asked 
 questions as from a doctor, and was 
 reproved as by the prophet, and wor- 
 shipped him as God. 
 
 Isho'dad, f. 259 v. 
 
 f<\^ f<h\ \\.\ coa a fti A 
 K'lAijj «._oorAo cnl r^ocD^ 
 
 ^lusoactisa .jA^Asq A!\^cA.i 
 ^ 1 s "ai r. i I \^ ,\\t .01.9 
 
 shewn her teeth. ^ Cod. cm. 
 
EPHBEM ON THE GOSPEL. 
 
 61 
 
 i.e. And they saw the marvels and 
 revelations which were too great for 
 the woman, and they cut off the 
 occasion that there might not be a 
 reproach upon Him and them from the 
 Jews that you have set the foundations 
 of your faith on the revelation of an 
 adulteress. And on this account they 
 said to her, Not for thy word do we 
 believe in him, for we have heard his 
 teaching and we know and see his 
 might, that he is the true Christ. 
 And moreover it is right that our 
 knowledge be the foundation of our 
 faith. 
 
 Mosinger, p. 147. 
 
 Si enim res creatae, angeli et 
 luminaria et ros et pluvia et fontes 
 et flumina die sabbati non cohibentur ; 
 si die sabbati neo angeli removentur 
 a suo servitio et famulatu, nee coeli 
 a mittendis roribus et pluviis, nee 
 luminaria a cursu, nee terra a pro- 
 ferendo fructu, neo homo a respira- 
 tione et gerieratione, immo potius die 
 sabbati homines generantur. 
 
 Imitated by Isho'dad, f. 263 r. 
 
 .r^o'i.l r^liucM .rAxsax.n 
 
 .T^\^^n r^hu»sn .rdsastu.i 
 rtf'ilosa rtf'.inelx.i t<nAsa 
 
 f<*Tl'l'|-l.l (^i^Asi^O XuAt^ 
 
 .on 1 I -1^ vyrc* 
 
 i.e. For I leave on one side the 
 circuit of the sun, the blast of the 
 winds, the course of the luminaries, 
 the bridling of the seas, the descent of 
 
62 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE COMMENTARY OF 
 
 the rain, the casting out of devils, 
 the birth and bringing up of men 
 and of all living things, and provi- 
 dence towards everything, those 
 things which are perfected by the 
 hand of angels according to his will. 
 
 Mdsinger, p. 156. 
 
 Matt. xvii. 3. Sive mortui sunt ut 
 Moyses, resurgent, sive vivunt, ut 
 Elias, ad eum volabunt. 
 
 Isho'dad, f. 87 r. 
 
 Moses from the dead, and Elias 
 from the living. 
 
 Bar-Hebraeus in loc. 
 
 .r<ll.M aSQ .CD 
 
 And there appeared to them Moses 
 (i.e. from the dead) and Elias (i.e. 
 from the living). 
 
 The Maronite Breviary (ed. 1665) 
 repeatedly plays on the same string : 
 e.g. (Feast of Transfiguration). 
 
 •,r^Lx»» avtsa ^sa 
 K'&u.sa ^ ...^xvmX ah\r^ 
 
 .rt^jku ^a .&r^ 
 (<'(&u:» ^ >4i*J r<x.ccsa\ 
 
 A^o K'AiJea A^ \Ax..i 
 
 etc. 
 
 etc. 
 
EPHREM ON THE GOSPEL. 
 
 63 
 
 MiSsinger, p. 156. 
 
 Matt. xvii. 4. Si vis, Domme, fad- 
 cmiui hie tria tahemaeula. Quod 
 dixit, quia ilium montem a vexationi- 
 bus Scribarum vacuum et quietum 
 vidit et hoc ei placuit. 
 
 Bar-Hebraeus in loo. 
 
 i.e. And we shall escape from the 
 tumult of the Jews. 
 
 MSainger, p. 156. 
 
 Luke ix. 33. Nemehat quod diceret, 
 quia Dominus crucem erat ascensurus, 
 vel quia tabemacula non hie eis 
 concessa erant, sed in mundo ven- 
 turo. Faoite, ait, vobis amices, qui 
 vos recipiant in tabemacula aetema. 
 
 MOsinger, p. 163. 
 
 Luke XV. 7. Cur autem gaudium 
 est de peooatoribus, qui poenitentiam 
 agunt, magis quam de justis, qui non 
 peccarunt. Quia gaudiimi esse solet 
 post tristitiam. Quoniam ergo tris- 
 titia est eis qui peccarunt, gaudium 
 fiat, quando agunt poenitentiam. 
 
 Isho'dad, f. 193 r. 
 
 .... .&A.-1UO tt-jir" x»o.t 
 r^ocn .^.v* r<l\.i .aai\ 
 .^f^ ^^ oA f<*\\\*in.i 
 ^cos rC'icnOJ ^iV^-i r^t^ 
 
 .)B,Vv\.i ^_ocni\\\*in3 ■^ 
 
 i.e. He did not know that our Lord 
 was about to suffer and be crucified. 
 ...Again he did not know that the 
 tabernacles are not there, but in the 
 world of light ; and the passage re- 
 ferring to the tabernacles that Peter 
 persuaded him to make, is 'there 
 they shall receive you indeed in their 
 tabernacles for ever.' 
 
 Isho'dad, f. 205 v. 
 
 ^TJMrCo .a\^ reA.i i<Ux<.i\ 
 
 i&i—a.l i<^o.i — Ml r<x M 
 
 ''cui^ ^j^to K^ocn K'^cui^ 
 
 ' Bepeated ex errore. 
 
 ' Ood. (ui&.lK'O {sic). 
 
64 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE COMMENTARY OF 
 
 Lvxke XV. 11—29. Note that the 
 Armenian commentary shews only 
 three lines on the Prodigal Son, 
 ending with a significant, etc. Some 
 of the missing matter is probably in 
 the long comment of Isho'dad on the 
 parable, but we have no means of 
 identifying it. 
 
 Mosinger, p. 165. 
 
 Luke xiii. 1. Et factum est, ut 
 venientes ei narrareni de Galilaeis, 
 quorum sanguinem Pilatus miscuit 
 cum sacrifieiis eorum, scilicet in fes- 
 tivitate regni Herodis, quo tempore 
 gladio amputavit caput Johannis. 
 Nimirum quia Joannes injuste et 
 contra legem occisus est, Pilatus 
 exercitum coUegit et mittens perdidit 
 onmes, qui simul aderant in illo 
 convivio. Et quia Herndes aliud 
 facere nequibat, propter ignominiam 
 ipsi Ulatam occidit omnes praefectos 
 exeroitus Pilati, eique iratus est 
 usque ad diem judicii Domini, qui 
 causa erat reconciliationis eorum. 
 Pilatus miscuit sanguinem eorum 
 cum sacrificiis eorum, quia iUi arce- 
 bantur a potestate Eomanorum, ne 
 holocausta et sacrificia possent offerre. 
 Novit Pilatus, eos legem transgresses 
 esse, et holocausta et sacrificia obtu- 
 lisse, quare in illo loco eo tempore 
 eos occidit. 
 
 r^JLcn ^.1-M .ft Ay «> .l-dk 
 
 And the enquiry is made Why is 
 their joy over sinners that repent 
 more than over the righteous that 
 have not sinned? And we say that it 
 is joy that is after pain, and if they 
 were pained when they sinned, now 
 they rejoice over their turning. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 80 r.). 
 ..IwCUa T^AuvK*.! KlAoSi^a 
 ocn ^.sno .ooco •Jsao>:t 
 
 ooca .A^.i KAixxsa ocnn 
 00.10103 re'i.'U* >i:^ r<laaui 
 
 i.e. But Pilate heard of the wicked- 
 ness done to John, and sent and 
 killed all the guests that were there ; 
 and from that day there was enmity 
 between them. And in the day of 
 the suffering of him, the reconciler 
 of all, Pilate and Herod became 
 friends with one another. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 201 v.). 
 oijaor^ ^aUK* oi\(^.i .«cn 
 
 »^_OJCD .f<'l\i\^ A^ ClA 
 
 »_Ckcnsa.i .\\m oaa\\ia.i 
 A\y*ai .^,,oon'i'u.3.l >i.:^ 
 r^iV^oz. ^ oocn ^A&.i Ti^ 
 
EPHREM ON THE GOSPEL. 65 
 
 ^^AJK" cxavu .t^srslstA 
 
 icard^ Ck^g^Luo .ojjls.i.i 
 
 r^lSQ.! ^r^ r<* tit, n.t 71-^ 
 
 .rduCka.i.i 
 
 It says : There came men who told 
 him of the Galileans whose blood 
 Pilate had mingled with their sacri- 
 fices.- For • because they were re- 
 strained by the authority of the 
 Eomans from sacrificing, when Pilate 
 found that they had transgressed the 
 command and sacrificed to devils, they 
 put them to the sword in the very 
 place and at the very time that they 
 had sacrificed, and thiis they mingled 
 with the sacrifices the blood of the 
 sacrificers. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 228 r.). 
 
 X^ oo.ioicD.i cn.iJua iixa.i 
 .aJiaSihxr^ ^mO* ^tjm.i cax.i 
 
 hsSnt^^A. .^.OJP^ '.M%T.t<' »3 
 
 ^ Cod. CUx&Z-K' ^ Cod. 'Uai..! 
 
 H. D. 5 
 
EXTRACTS FROM THE COMMENTARY OF 
 
 Mosinger, p. 166. 
 
 Voluerunt euim comperire, utrum 
 strages eorum propter ipsorum sacri- 
 ficia ei placeret, sicque contra legem 
 et cum gentilibus esset, an sacrificium 
 defenderet, quo casu eum apud Pila- 
 tum acciisaturi erant, quod imperio 
 Romanorum adversaretur. 
 
 K^AtT. 
 
 
 Mar Ephrem. At the birthday 
 feast of Herod, when the head of 
 S. John was cut off unlawfully, Pilate 
 sent Bomans and killed those who 
 had taken part in the banquet, for 
 he found out that they were sacri- 
 ficing, though forbidden to sacrifice 
 by the Romans. And they were 
 enraged with one another from that 
 day ; but they were reconciled on the 
 day of the suffering of him who is 
 the cause of the peace of all created 
 things. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 201 v.). 
 
 .oi.i&uz.K' cnA^g ■ ta..\ «aa\.'i 
 «j^s .xsnr^ rdjca «.a^:u.i 
 
 .r^.jiooaaJi A-inal .m^Aum 
 
 Aaool.! 
 
 
 .rcli.sacn'i.i ocd rc'ifO^'n 
 
 Those who came were sent for the 
 purpose of tempting him, that they 
 might know what he would say. And 
 if he should say that they were 
 righteously killed, he would be found 
 to be an adversary of the law; but 
 if he speak evilly of their murder, 
 they would accuse him before Pilate 
 as being adverse to the kingdom of 
 the Romans. 
 
 ' Cod. id^. 
 
EPHKEM ON THE GOSPEL. 
 
 67 
 
 Mosinger, p. 166. 
 
 Lukexiii. 6. Alia parabola: Homo 
 quddam plantaverat in vinea suaficum 
 et dioit ad eolonwm. Colonus hie erat 
 lex, axl legem enim respexit. Hi ires 
 anni simt, quod venio quaerere fructus 
 ex hacficu, quod propter trea captivi- 
 tates dixit, quibus Israelitae captivi 
 ducti et castigati, non autem emen- 
 dati sunt. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 202 r.). 
 rt* 1 a\ A_^ .K'Atrt* V <\ 
 
 Others say, that in this parable he 
 spake of the time of repentance. The 
 fig-tree is the people ; the gardener, 
 the law ; [the three years] the three 
 captivities in which they were led 
 captive that they might be reformed, 
 but they were not reformed. 
 
 Mosinger, p. 166. 
 
 Luke xiii. 8. Dimitte earn et hoc 
 aimo. Annuit Dominus se fore long- 
 animem erga eos, quod est tempua 
 septuaginta hebdomadum. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 202 r.). 
 
 The words 'Let it alone this year 
 also' intimate the time of seventy 
 weeks. 
 
 M6singer, p. 167. 
 
 John vii. 3. Quoniam eum tradere 
 voluerunt, propterea eoa fefellit di- 
 oens, Non ascendo. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 268 r.). 
 ooA A.1^ ^i&aiSirc'dTSa 
 >\ ^cnckijr^ ^x<7i 
 r<!z.A&a .^cixajaaalzi.1 ^^ 
 
 a=._^ 
 
 • ■ • ■ 1 
 
 Mar Ephrem blames them, because 
 even his brethren wished there to 
 betray him ; for by the delay of his 
 going up to the feast, &c. 
 
 5—2 
 
68 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE COMMENTARY OF 
 
 MOsinger, p. 174. 
 
 Matt. xix. 16. Et quomodo renim- 
 ciavit huio nomini is qui de se ipso 
 dixit ; Pastor bonus animam suam 
 dat pro ovibus suis...? Porro : Qui 
 seminavit semen frumenti sancti ipse 
 est iilius hominis et semen bononim 
 filii sunt regni. Quomodo semen po- 
 test esse bonum, et qui id seminat 
 malus ? 
 
 MOsinger, p. 175. 
 
 Luke xvi. 22. At cur solum Abra- 
 hamum, non autem ceteros justos 
 vidit, et Lazarum in sinu ejus ? 
 
 Mosinger, p. 180. 
 
 Luke xix. 5. Precabatur Zachaeus 
 in corde suo et dixit : Beatus est qui- 
 ounque dignus invenietur, ut in do- 
 mum ejus iste Justus intret. Et dixit 
 ei Dominus : Festina, descende iatinc, 
 ZacJiaee! Qui cum intellexisset, Dom- 
 inum cogitationem ejus novisse, dixit : 
 Si istam cogitationem novit, omnia 
 quoque quae unquam feci, scit. Ideo 
 respondit ' Omnia quae UTiqucum ah 
 aliquo injuste accepi, reddam haec 
 quadniplum.' 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 96 r.). 
 rOrtf' rtfJt^'s otxxAJ.Ao 
 >A ocno .f<^a\ f<li:k.i 
 ^aa0^r<' re'.a!^^ r<l^i\ .^it.1 
 ^_&_>r^O .r^-z-irc*.! coi-s 
 
 He said of himself, that I am the 
 good shepherd ; and he that sowed 
 the good seed is the Son of man, and 
 how is it possible that the seed should 
 be good and its sower bad ? 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 214 r.). 
 
 .V0.1A clAo KlA^wsn-a 
 .Kl&ijcAo 
 
 He commemorates Abraham in the 
 parable, and not David and the rest. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 219 r.). 
 .cm I . 'h i-a r^^si XA 
 
 «^a-x..i A % \ rfCno_aekA^ 
 
 ocno ..A&\ ^Om Acniiuaert' 
 
 A.A j^Xa K'.tcni T<JL^r< 
 K'.icn A,^o i^:u h\:i -1 \ .i 
 
EPHKEM ON THE GOSPEL, 
 
 69 
 
 i.e. While he was praying inwardly 
 [and saying] Blessed is every one who 
 is worthy that this righteous man 
 should enter into his house. And 
 our Lord knew it and said to him, 
 Make haste and come down, Zac- 
 chaeus. And he, when he saw that 
 he knew him, both his name and his 
 thought, said, ' This man, if he knows 
 this, knows everything that I have 
 done' ; and therefore he said ' What- 
 ever I have defrauded, I repay four- 
 fold.' 
 
 MSsinger, p. 151. 
 
 Matt. xxi. 12. Quas autem intra 
 templum oves et boves vendebant, 
 eae erant quas sacerdotes ex SEiori- 
 ficiis coUigebant. 
 
 Mosinger, p. 182. 
 
 Matt. xzi. 19. Similiter Gergesaei 
 consilium cepenint, non egrediendi 
 ad Dominum, quare porcos eorum 
 sufifocavit, ut excitarentur et vel invi- 
 ti ad eum exirent. 
 
 Ita et possessor hujus ficulneae 
 decreverat, Christum non adire, et 
 hie arefecit ficulneam ejus, ut invitus 
 ad ipsum veniret, quia Dominus in 
 omnibus occasionibus salutem homi- 
 num desiderabat. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 102 v.). 
 
 ^jAat^.l .c<^ix..io f^'io^o 
 ooca ^....a-icn ^.sa^ oooo 
 
 oocD ■ii-iisa 
 
 .ICOAD.l 
 
 
 In this passage, concerning those 
 sheep and oxen, &o., that were sold 
 there, they were those which were 
 offered to God and the priests sold 
 them again, as Mar Ephrem wit- 
 nesses. 
 
 Isho'dad (f 105 v.). 
 5aA r<i\Ar^:t .r<l4'i.*»r<' 
 
 ^.ocm'itUja .niM rc'ncD A:^o 
 
 reliAco CDTSa A.r^ 
 
 ».1 vwr 
 
 i.e. KWOI.I. 
 
70 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE COMMENTARY OF 
 
 Bursus quando dixit, Destruite 
 templum hoc, et tertia die suscitabo 
 illud, ei responderunt, Quadraginta 
 sex annis, &c.,.,Itaque ad monstran- 
 dam potestatem divinitatis suae male- 
 dixit ficulneae et arefacta est. 
 
 Cf. Mosinger, p. 44. 
 
 Nemo ex urbe Gergesenorum ad 
 ipsum exire voluit, donee ibi mira- 
 culum faceret. 
 
 Also, Mosinger, p. 75. 
 
 Gergeseni consilium ceperant, ne- 
 que exeundi, neque videndi signum 
 Domini. Ideo suffocavit gregem por- 
 corum eorum, ut inviti exirent. 
 
 
 
 .r<la. 
 
 (<Lz1Jl1S.1 K'OCD «<l9^ ^-*'\. 
 
 .r^l^ril&.l ru-ik^crrlo .oral 
 
 r^h\r^ ."US .K'Axisa '[-1^.] 
 
 i.e. Others say, that just as the 
 Gadarenes had made an agreement 
 not to go out to Jesus, and on this 
 account he choked their pigs, in order 
 that they might come out though 
 unwillingly; so the lord of the fig-tree 
 had made up his mind not to come 
 out to him,' and therefore he made 
 his fig-tree to wither. For by all 
 means he wished to save men. 
 
 Others say, that because when our 
 Lord said of the temple of his body 
 that in three days I will raise it up ; 
 and of the temple of stones that there 
 shall not be left, &c., there was a 
 doubt of his word, by the miracle of 
 the drying up of the fig-tree it con- 
 firmed his word. 
 
 ' Ood. cm. J^.. 
 
EPHREM ON THE GOSPEL. 
 
 71 
 
 Mosinger, p. 184. 
 
 Matt. xxi. 21. Iterum dicunt, quod 
 ait, Dicetis hide monti, non est mons, 
 sed diabolus, aut simile aliquid. 
 
 Bar-Hebraeus in loc. 
 
 .r^l\w\ . . . 
 
 Ye shall say to this mountain, i.e. 
 to Satan. 
 
 Cf. in Matt. xvii. 20, 
 
 He called Satan the mountain. 
 Cf. Isho'dad (f. 89 v). 
 ».j_=>3 ri'-l.^-ga r^\o\ 
 
 Our Lord parabolically calls the 
 powers of Satan ' mountain.' 
 
 Mosinger, p. 185. 
 
 Matt. ixi. 21. Si iste mons daemon 
 erat, ut illi opinantur, de eo id quoque 
 valeret, quod sequitur : mittere in 
 mare. Verum qua ex causa si quis 
 daemonem ejecit, in mare eum mittet ? 
 at fortasse haec eis erit causa, quod 
 Dominus [hac ratione] daemones 
 ejecit ? 
 
 Bar-Hebraeus in loc. 
 
 i.e. according as it happened to the 
 devils who entered into the swine. 
 
 Mosinger, p. 186. 
 
 Sed quum tempus suae passionis 
 prope esset, ne quis putaret eum com- 
 prehensum esse, quia se ipsum libe- 
 rare non posset, Dominus ficulneae 
 
 maledixit praeveniens, per inani- 
 
 matam plantam quam arefecit, osten- 
 dit se per verbum etiam cruciflxores 
 suos perdere posse. 
 
 Bar-Heb. in Matt. xxi. 
 
 t<'.iJLsa\^ ...a^.<U.i Kilns' 
 alrc'cv jcr<^ coixs^an cn\m 
 
 i.e. that his disciples might know 
 his power, that he suffers of his own 
 will, and that if he had willed, just as 
 he made the fig-tree wither he would 
 have put to death the crucifiers. 
 
 And cf. Isho'dad (f. 104 v.). 
 
72 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE COMMENTARY OF 
 
 Mosinger, p. 186. 
 
 Admirati sunt diseipidi ejus, qwo- 
 modo tarn suhito arefecta sit. Quia 
 nempe sua natura ficus, si caeditur, 
 propter viriditatis abundantiam post 
 multos demum menses arida fit. 
 
 Mosinger, p. 192. 
 
 Matt. xxi. 33. Et sepe munivit 
 earn, nempe lege, et tormdar praepa- 
 ravit in ea, altare, et aedificavit in ea 
 turrim, templum, etc. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 105 r.). 
 re'iaxs ^wm-wa ^^sa&^^an 
 
 And from a tree which of all trees 
 is moist and green, so that even when 
 it is cut down it is with difficulty 
 dried by fire ; and this tree he dried 
 up by the utterance of his word. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 106 r.). 
 
 .... r<L<ca_\(^ KLli.iCL.^ 
 
 r^ M -i.1-5q-A r^hy^^ s. "rn 
 
 .... r^sdfloa:! 
 
 The fence [he calls] the observance 
 that was given to them by the Divine 
 aid... the tower, the temple; the wine- 
 vat, the altar of incense, &c. 
 
 Moses Bar-Kepha (f. 98, b. 1). 
 
 ^&\_sa.t r£. n T.ft — & 
 
 .w*sas\ rtlssi&o t^otAi^ 
 
 .r^'oAt^ ^.1 rdji.icx^ ot^ 
 .rdJL-& >CD 
 
 
EPHREM ON THE GOSPEL. 
 
 73 
 
 Mosinger, p. 193. 
 
 Matt. xxi. 42. Loyais qimm repro- 
 baverunt asdificantes, ipse factics est 
 captU angvM. Qualis lapis ? Is qui 
 dicitur adamantinus his verbis : Pono 
 ego adamantem in medio filiorum 
 Israel. ... Et dictum est " Super quem 
 cadet," &c. 
 
 .cni— S.I K'Axi. >« n.i ^._*.i 
 ^.99 ial ^.i Mcna.fi^r^.1 
 
 .Kbcn :u3T^ 
 
 ocaisn.n 
 
 Exposition of Matthew succinctly. 
 
 He calls God the man, and his 
 people the vineyard ; the hedge is the 
 observance of laws, or the help of 
 God; the tower is the temple, the 
 wine-vat is the altar on which the 
 blood of the sacrifices is shed; the 
 husbandmen are the band of priests ; 
 the servants that were sent are the 
 prophets; the sending of the son at 
 the last he calls his own coming ; and 
 that they cast him out of the vine- 
 yard and killed him means that he 
 perished at their hands. 
 
 Bar-Hebraeus in loc. 
 
 coA ^a_flo .en r^l^kJio 
 
 cms i.^-MO (^-flvCL-SO-t 
 
 KLuL-a.l-SQ 
 
 CD 
 
 r^Axi, 
 
 The fence, i.e. he established the 
 law ; and digged a wine-vat in it ; i.e. 
 the altar of sacrifices. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 106 v.). 
 
 Whosoever shall fall on the stone 
 of adamant. 
 
 T<3k.r<A, A^ i^l.i 
 
 .QOCLSa.lK'.l 
 
74 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE COMMENTARY OF 
 
 The influence of Ephrem on Isho'dad 
 is perceptible, though slight. Note 
 that M6singer again fails to identify 
 the quotation from the Old Testa- 
 ment. It is Amos vii. 8. 
 
 r<it^ ^ar^UiD KllK' t^eo 
 
 Mosinger, p. 197. 
 
 John viii. 48. Samaritanum autem 
 Dominum vocarunt, quia Samaritani 
 de se ipsis contra Judaeos affirmant : 
 Nos sumus filii Abrahae, ut et Judaei 
 contra eos idem de se contendunt. 
 Quum jam Dominus ad Judaeos dixis- 
 set : Si filii estis Ahrahae, etiam opera 
 ejus facite, Judaeis visum est, partes 
 Samaritanorumhoc ejusverbum tueri, 
 ideo dixerunt ad eum, Samaritanus 
 es tu. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 273 v.). 
 
 olrc'n >-~ir'° CkSkSOX. .t&o 
 
 .w**w«n r^Msa i<L>'isax..i 
 
 They called him a Samaritan be- 
 cause the Samaritans say of them- 
 selves against the Jews that ' we are 
 the children of Abraham,' and the 
 Jews say the same against the Sama- 
 ritans. And when they heard our Lord 
 saying ' If ye would be the children of 
 Abraham, do the works of Abraham,' 
 they supposed that the Word stood on 
 the side of the Samaritans, though 
 he was clad in the form of the Jews, 
 
KPHREM ON THE GOSPEL. 
 
 75 
 
 MSsinger, p. 197. 
 
 John viii. 56. Abraham desideravit 
 videre diem meutn, vidit et gavisui est. 
 Quern diem ? Elum, de quo ei dictum 
 est: 'In semiue tuo benediceutur 
 omuesgentes.' Vidit autem et gavisus 
 est quia vidit m^torium agni. 
 
 Tlie mystery of the lamb seen by 
 Abraham is the 'ram caught in the 
 thicket' Of. MOsinger, p. 207, Vidit 
 Abraham diem meum et gavisas est, 
 nimirum per agnum in arbore qui 
 solvit et liberavit Isaac ligatum, at et 
 Dominus vincula geutiiuu solvit per 
 crucem. 
 
 MSsiuger, p. 198. 
 
 John ix. 6. Et fecit lutum ex sputo 
 suo, et fecit oculos in hoc luto. 
 
 Non enim iSiloe solvit oculos caeci, 
 \it uec aquae Jordauis Naaman saua- 
 runt, sed maudatum Christi hoc 
 efiecit. 
 
 Imitated by Isho'dad (f. 274 r.). 
 
 ooo 1 .m .GO— soo__> 
 
 A\m cos.i ocnX .KT^tata 
 
 .rtf^osa Aaa A^.i r^Ji** 
 
 His day : i.a the day of the Cross : 
 on which he accepted death for the 
 life of aU. 
 
 Imitated by Isho'dad (f. 305 r.). 
 GOJ390-& ^-^^-f rtfl-novs 
 
 •^XJ.1 .tJaA^r^ r<V*oliX..i 
 
 .i\n> ^(^ .dOcD Aa\Jkt^ 
 t^-itOJLMX^ col (^ocn -\^''*** 
 
 
 ^.iio^.i Tr*'i'*»n-> Gosi^ pa 
 
 .rdxAi^ 
 
 By the spittle fiom his mouth the 
 eyes were fiashioned, and then he was 
 commanded to wash in the waters of 
 Siloam : but unless the eyes had 
 secretly been fashioned, he might have 
 washed in Siloam many times with- 
 out advantage ; even as Naaman 
 would not have been cleansed from 
 his leprosy by the waters of Jordan 
 unless the Divine power had cleansed 
 him by the hand of Elisha. 
 
76 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE COMMENTARY OF 
 
 Mosinger, p. 200. Isho'dad (f. 277 v.). 
 
 John X. 8. Quod ait: Omnes qui tt>oiei_aori'A* f_i.1 .Urtf 
 ante me venerunt, fures erant et la- 
 trones; de Theuda et Juda dixit. .AOOO^rf w'll^^ . fiT«\ ^00 
 
 i.e. a Grod-possessed man interprets 
 it on this wise: the thief is the de- 
 ceiver and the liar, like Theudas and 
 Judas, &c. 
 
 The interpretation was shown by Zahn {Tatian, p. 47) to exist 
 in the margin of copies of the Heraclean version at John x. 8 in 
 the form 'Theudas, Judas the Galilean &c.' But here Ephrem 
 does not seem to be named. Isho'dad does not name Ephrem, but 
 speaks of the interpretation being due to a ' Theophorus,' a form 
 of quotation which he sometimes employs. 
 
 The interpretation, however, is certainly popular with the 
 author of the Commentary, for we find (i) that he returns to 
 it on p. 209 'Et illis annis surrexit Theodas ejusque socii quos 
 Chrisfcus latrones vocavit'; (ii) the verse commented on was, a 
 favourite Marcionite proof-text, and was sure to require special 
 treatment in such an anti-Marcionite book as the Commentary 
 undoubtedly is. Note that Isho'dad (f 278 v.) is sensible of its 
 bearing on the Marcionite controversy, for he says 
 
 r<liu\^ r^\a reUu.i rd^iXo r«lx.osal ii\^ oA 
 
 vyn 
 
 i.e. He does not call Moses and the choir of the prophets thieves and 
 robbers, according to the foolishness of Marcion and Mani. 
 
 Mosinger, p. 200. 
 
 John xi. 4. Compara jam verbo 
 Vivificatoris et inteUige quomodo 
 inter se conveniant. Ad caecum 
 dixit : Non hujus est peccaium, nee cog- 
 natorum ejus, sed ut revelentur opera 
 Dei in isto: et de morbo Lazari dixit : 
 Hie morbus non est ad mortem sed 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 281 r.). 
 cni-3 ■iji,--)A< T 1.1 ^va 
 
 .i,=ar<' relsaflo ■\\''»i.i ^cnl 
 .iCDOmarC r^O rCllCD i^A.i 
 
EPHREM ON THE GOSPEL. 
 
 77 
 
 propter gloriam Dei ut glorificetw in cn_3 
 eo Filius Dei. 
 
 Mosiriger, p. 201. 
 
 John xi. 9. Quibus verbis per com- 
 parationem et imaginem Apostolos 
 voluit docere, Judaeos ante finem 
 anni remissionis, qui est mater men- 
 sium, non esse offensuros per ocoi- 
 sionem Domini, qvia tenebrae regna- 
 turae erant in Sion. Nonne duodeoim, 
 horae sunt diet? i.e. quid timetis, ne 
 lapidemini? Donee ego vobiscum 
 sum, nemo vestrum mecum et pro 
 me patietur; verum venient super vos 
 tenebrae, plenae doloribus, quando a 
 vobis elevatus ero et vos dimittam. 
 Sed aocipietis coronas, ut et ego, qui 
 coronabor et e medio vestrum ele- 
 vabor. 
 
 
 The passage ' that the Son of man 
 may be glorified in him,' is similar to 
 what he said in the case of the blind 
 man, 'neither this man nor his 
 parents, but that the works of God 
 may be seen in him.' 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 282 r.). 
 
 ^A_l.i K'.icn t<'i^rtf'\.«\ a 
 r^silz..i (<l±a.v^3 rc'.iienX^ 
 
 .ca_j A- Q 3 T^L^nom • 
 
 W-ACi ,36 .,M ^vAjsnsnx ocn 
 
 v\i.T±Q .hxr^sn ru .a&Lijo 
 
 i.e. others interpret : He wished by 
 this parable to teach his disciples 
 
 1 Cod. t<SlXm. 
 
 Cod. 
 
 vOoasao. 
 
 » Cod. rd&xu. 
 
78 
 
 EXTRACTS PEOM THE COMMENTARY OF 
 
 that until the year of his gospel 
 was completed, which is the mother 
 of months, the Jews will not be 
 offended at his murder, [in which 
 month] darkness will reign in Ziou. 
 Others say : Are you afraid of the 
 people while I am with you 1 None 
 of you will die with me or instead of 
 me. For darkness will come upon 
 you full of suffering and sickness and 
 fear, when I shall be lifted up from 
 you and shall make some of you to 
 be offended in order that you may 
 know your own weakness; and ye 
 shall receive crowns, &c. 
 
 Mosinger, p. 201. 
 
 John xi. 15. Gavisus est quum 
 audivit, flevit quum advenit. Dixe- 
 rat, eum mortuum esse, antequam 
 advenisset, et post adventum inter- 
 rogavit ' Ubi posuistis eumi ' 
 
 MSsinger, p. 203. 
 
 John xi. 33. Quod autem twbatus, 
 consonat cum eo quod dixit : Quamdiu 
 vdbitcwm ero, et voMsmmi loqawr? et 
 aUo loco, Taedet me de generatione 
 ista. 
 
 Isho'dad (£ 284 r.). 
 .cnuia..i .s'wg. .t^ ^.tu 
 
 r<\ X.& orA ivijsa.i ^.-ua 
 Ak'.t.o vih\ri-i KlA.t-^ 
 
 He rejoiced when he heard that he 
 was sick and wept when he came to 
 revive him ; he comprehended that 
 he was dead, before he came, and 
 asked ' where have ye put him V 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 283 r.). 
 .cruioi-a \V^-^r<'i ^cn 
 
 r^La-ioca—k A *fc r^i\-sa— M.i 
 
 v>caA r^.icn i i ^ vf \ •».! 
 tV-a»^r^o .i<'.ioca-> .^ s .i 
 ;ial ...OAJisa .TM.i .isarc'o >\ 
 
EPHREM ON THE GOSPEL. 
 
 79 
 
 The expression, 'He was angered 
 in his spirit' [implies that] his per- 
 turbation was a sign of his anger 
 over the Jews.... It is like to the 
 passage concerning Judas, that he was 
 angered and said that 'one of you 
 will betray me ' ; or to this 'How long 
 shall I be with you and suffer you, &c. ? ' 
 
 MSsinger, p. 204. 
 
 John xi. 39. Accedite et auferte 
 lapidem. Qui mortuum vivificavit 
 et vitam in eum redemit, nonne et 
 potuit aperire sepulci-um et auferre 
 lapidem ? Qui discipulis suis dixerat, 
 Si habetis fidem ut granum sinapis, 
 dicetis monti huic : Transferre et 
 transferretur a facie vestra, nonne 
 hie lapidem ab ore sepulcri potuit 
 removere ? Profecto, qui in cruce 
 pendens voce sua petram et sepulcra 
 scidit, potuit et verbo suo lapidem 
 istum levare. Sed quia Lazarus amicus 
 ejus erat, dixit : Aperite vos ipsi, ut 
 odor foetoris ejus nares eorum tan- 
 geret, et solvite ewm vos ipsi ab eis 
 quibus etim ligastis, ut opus manuum 
 vestrarum cognosoatis. 
 
 Ideo tempore mortis Lazari Dominus 
 ad hunc pagum se non contulit, ne 
 dioerent : Pactum inter se consti- 
 tuerunt. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 284 r.). 
 .xi^r<'o K'l&usn ^MT^.i ocn 
 
 Mhy 9> *an \ rc'i -i n rebcn 
 .r^i^Lsos oi^i^al rd^r^l&o 
 dcno.TaSU^ TSarC'.i ocno 
 
 .rc'io!^ ...Alx.^ rtll.iiu.i 
 r^'\ \ nv-B en \ n -i.i ocno 
 ^i^ r^'i — a — oo r<l^rel_& 
 
 rc'A^.Tva 
 
 ^- 
 
 jsa r^-. 
 
 ,w 
 
 K'^O— >i — 001 r<! — ML li 
 ^cajJoiixaXrC'?! ... ^o^r^ 
 
80 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE COMMENTARY OF 
 
 ^sn^ cojc&j \ 1 n Off r<^ 
 
 .A^ocD^u^a ccaaa 
 
 i.e. He who quickened the dead 
 and brought back the soul, &c. : was 
 not he able to open the grave and to 
 roll away the stone by a word ? And 
 he who said to his disciples, If ye 
 had faith as a grain of mustard, ye 
 should remove mountains ; and he 
 who by his voice on the cross shat- 
 tered rocks and graves, &c. : But 
 because he was the friend of Lazarus 
 he said ' Open the grave,' in order that 
 the smell of his putrefaction might 
 reach their nostrils, and ' Loose him,' 
 ye who clad him, in order that ye 
 may recognize the work of your 
 hands. 
 
 On this account, when he died, 
 he did not present himself there, 
 that it might not be said that they 
 had made an agreement between 
 them. 
 
 Mosinger, p. 213. 
 
 Matt. xxiv. 15. Romani intra 
 templum vexilla sua statuerunt, in 
 quibus erat figura aquilae. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 112 r.). 
 
 [k'.'Uo .en] >1 cai\u)o.i 
 A^ poito T^ixJ ^cna i>^:i 
 
 Mar Ephrem: this means that he 
 set the standards, on which was re- 
 presented an eagle, on the top of a 
 spear and brought them into the 
 temple. 
 
 [The word ' standard ' is explained 
 by Isho'dad by an alternative term.] 
 
EPHREM ON THE GOSPEL 
 
 81 
 
 MQsinger, p. 213. 
 
 Matt. xxiv. 15. Alii dicunt, signum 
 dirutionis ejus fuisse quod Bomani 
 caput poroi apportandum et per 
 Pilatum intra templum collocandum 
 curarunt. 
 
 In both the Armenian and the 
 Syrian this extract follows immedi- 
 ately on the preceding. 
 
 Mdsinger, p. 214. 
 
 Matt. xxiv. 20. Orate et petite, ne 
 sit fuffa vestra in hieme, nee in die 
 sabbati, videlicet, ne in captivitate 
 abducamini, quo tempore non licet 
 operari. Ut hiems sine fructibus est, 
 et sabbatum sine operatione, ita 
 cavete, ne vos abducamini, quando 
 nee fructum habebitis nee opera- 
 tionem. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 112 r.). 
 
 Others say that Pilate brought in 
 the head of a pig. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 225 v.). 
 t<Ll.i O-A^ .en .i^.i_ii_^ 
 
 That they may not be taken in 
 the winter nor on the sabbath : either 
 it refers to the end of the world, or 
 the separation of every soul from the 
 body: since 'winter' implies defect 
 of fruit, but 'the sabbath' vacancy 
 from labours : that is, pray that you 
 may not be taken when you have 
 no time for labour and when you are 
 deprived of the fruits of faith and of 
 works of virtue. 
 
 H, P. 
 
 6 
 
82 
 
 EXTRACTS PROM THE COMMENTARY OF 
 
 Mosinger, p. 214. 
 
 Ne forsitan, ait, si innocentes et 
 simplices- in vobis inveniantur, ita 
 sabbatum tempore belli observant, 
 siouti pactum foederis observare de- 
 betis, neve vos occidant, siouti eos 
 qui in illo antro oooisi sunt. 
 
 er, p. 216. 
 Luke xxi. 36. Orate ut digm sitis 
 eximi ah hia omnibus quae ventitra 
 SU7U. Haec quoque, ut nonnulli ex- 
 plicant, de punitione urbi Jerusalem 
 instante Dominus dixit, iisdemque 
 verbis finem mundi significavit. 
 
 MSsinger, p. 215. 
 Luke xxi. 36. Alii dicunt, ad solos 
 Apostolos haec dicta esse, ut, si feria 
 sexta sol defecturus sit, conforta- 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 225 v.). 
 .rc'Av n T -n rCllo 
 
 ^o.tacu rClsifl.! rtlsaeua 
 
 i.e. And not on the Sabbath; when 
 ye are idle ; lest when there shall be 
 found among you simple people and 
 intent on keeping the Sabbath, in time 
 of war they should destroy them as 
 they did those who were in the cave. 
 (Cf. 1 Mace. ii. 31—38.) 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 225 r.). 
 
 .i<U.iocnA ivx.!!^ o.t& ^.1 
 >>cn h— *•! OX— »n ^i lis o\i ** i 
 
 K^-icn ..U0.1 ^cao\sn ^rti'.i 
 
 Historically the passage implies 
 what has already happened to the 
 Jews : metaphorically, what will hap- 
 pen in the end of the world. Because, 
 moreover, the words of our Lord in 
 this place teach concerning both 
 times. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 225 v.). 
 
 rc^w t\ T. Aj^.i .^ I T yr^ 
 
 1 Cod. 
 
 w *\t . i ej (Rio). 
 
GPHKEM ON THE GOSPEL. 
 
 83 
 
 rontur. Porro ait, In Sabbato, quia 
 de Sabbato Judaei jactabantiir ; et, 
 In hieme, quia fHgida est 
 
 f^h\ ^ T,.i ft*i \\ n.i l-Ak. 
 r^b^Boa .eiai^o OA^h\T^ 
 
 .K'oco Jbian A^ 
 
 Some people say, that it was spoken 
 only of the Apostles. The Sabbath, 
 because on the night of the Sabbath 
 (sic !) they were apprehended and ran 
 away. And winter, because it was 
 cold. (Cf. John xviii. 18.) 
 
 Monger, p. S16. 
 Matt. xxiv. 36. Diem Mum nenio 
 idt, neqw Angel i^ naqua FSIiui, nt 
 iUud ; Discedite a me maledicti Patris 
 mei in ignem aetemum, quia nou novi 
 Tos. Sicut ergo noyit malos, sed 
 propter eorum opera dicit : Non novi 
 vos : ita etsi momentum adventus 
 sui noyisset etc. 
 
 Imitated in 
 Isho'dad (£ 163 r.). 
 
 If the words 'He knows not the 
 day,' and this passage 'I knew you 
 not,' which he spake over the foolish 
 virgins, and ' I never knew you' which 
 he said to the leaders of heresies, 
 must be vinderstood as of outward 
 familiarity, &a 
 
 MSsinger, p. 216. 
 
 Matt. xxiv. 36. Quomodo jam mo- 
 mentum adventus sui non novit ? Si 
 Patrem novit, quid, quaeso, Patre 
 miyns est, quod nesdret ? 
 
 Isho'dad(£ 115 v.). 
 
 ^iujaa 
 
 OOP 
 
 
 pa ccD 
 
 And he does not know the day. 
 Then that day is something greater 
 than the Father. 
 
 6—2 
 
84 
 
 EXTRACTS PROM THE COMMENTARY OF 
 
 Mosinger, p. 217. 
 
 Matt. xxiv. Porro scriptum est : 
 Consilium Dei Christus est, per quern 
 revelata sunt omnia occulta sapientiae 
 et scientiae. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 162 v.). 
 
 .i<'iiv..'u.io r<'&aaa4*:i 
 
 Otherwise how did the Apostle 
 say that 'in Him are hid all the 
 treasures of wisdom and knowledge ' ? 
 
 Mosinger, p. 217. 
 
 Matt. xxiv. 36. Et Spiritus ea 
 
 quae ab ipso condita sunt, novit, ut 
 
 et illi affirmant, quia profunda Dei 
 
 scrutatur, Filius autem haec nesciat. 
 
 Mesinger, p. 221. 
 
 John xiii. 26. Et intinxit eum, ut 
 sic participationem indicaret caedis 
 suae plene patratae, qua corpus san- 
 guine ipsius intinctum est. Aut ideo 
 intinxit panem, ne cum pane etiam 
 testamentum daret. Lavavit prius 
 panem et tunc ilium ei dedit. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 115 v.). 
 GfA*.l ^.1 r«l>oi .K'crArc':! 
 
 And if the Spirit searches all 
 things, even the depths of God, and 
 the Spirit is Christ's own, how is it 
 that He does not know those things 
 which are done by His hands ? 
 
 Controverted by Isho'dad (f. 164 v.). 
 
 3^:1 .«ix i>^ii ^n ^00 
 
 ^o r<''^ox*.Ta fSao .oral 
 .cn\iT t^ vvisa K'l^ioa 
 
 As to what some say, that Jesus 
 dipped the bread and gave it to him, 
 and washed off its sanctity and the 
 blessing which he had invoked, there 
 is no likelihood in it. 
 
 It appears that Ephrem is really concerned over the fact that 
 Judas had partaken of the holy bread and presumably inherited 
 eternal life thereby ; so he invents a theory of the de-consecration 
 
EPHREM ON THE GOSPEL. 
 
 85 
 
 of the elements, by dipping the bread in water. (Cf. Maher, 
 Diatessaron.) Isho'dad very properly rejects the theory. 
 
 It appears, however, in Moses bar Kepha, with a special 
 reference to the Commentary of Ephrem. 
 
 Moses bar Kepha (f. 115 b. 2). 
 •^^Skf^ ^\sn Ar^ xsar^ ^.i 
 
 
 •"^JT 
 
 i.e. Mar Ephrem in his Commentary on the Gospels says the same as Mar 
 Jacob. Judas took the bread, that bread which the Lord dipped and gave 
 him, and went to the priests.... Our Lord washed it and made it unconsecrated. 
 
 Mosinger, p. 221. 
 
 Matt. xxvi. 26. Ex illo momento, 
 quo discipulis suis corpus suum 
 fregit, et corpus (1. sanguinem) suum 
 Apostolis dedit, numerantur tres dies 
 ejus, quibus cum mortuis computa- 
 batur, ut et Adam, qui, postquam de 
 ilia arbore comedit, multis annis 
 visit, quamvis propter mandati trans- 
 gressionem mortuis annumeratur, 
 quia Deus ita dixit. Quo die come- 
 deris, morieris. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 71 r.). 
 
 ocn ^JM.i ^cas .r^lsa.t 
 ^^_%sa rfaca .hxXm r^ist 
 
 .aCD ftSn .... 
 
 It* 1 \ .t^ ^jsa AeL..a>r^^.i 
 r^jiti ^^ .oiosaoi aonsn 
 
 Some say: from the time that he 
 had broken his body and mingled the 
 blood ; for from that time our Lord 
 was reckoned [among the dead].... 
 
 As in the word to Adam, that in 
 the day that thou shalt eat of the 
 tree, thou shalt surely die ; and then 
 his life was 930 years. 
 
86 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE COMMENTARY OF 
 
 M6singer, p. 222. 
 
 Matt. xxvi. 29. In posterum non 
 bibam ex hoc genimine vitis usque 
 ad regnum Patris mei... usque ad 
 resvurectionem meam. Quod docet 
 Simon in ActibusApostolorum dicens: 
 Post resiureotionem per quadraginta 
 dierum tempus edimus cum eo et 
 bibimus. 
 
 M^singer, p. 225. 
 
 John xiv. 16. Alium paraclitum 
 mitto ad vos : i.e. consolatorem. 
 
 MSsinger, p. 228. 
 
 John xvii. 5. Gla/rifica Filiwm, tuum 
 et Filvua clwnficabit te. Quod non 
 quasi indigens, ut haec acciperet, 
 rogavit, sed ordinem primarium crea- 
 tionis perfecturus postulavit gloriam 
 etc. 
 
 Mdsinger, p. 231. 
 
 Matt. xxvi. 41. Quomodo Domiuus, 
 cujus auxilio Apostoli mortem suam 
 despexerunt juxta verbum ejus: Nolite 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 128 r.). 
 
 ^.omsax. Aai^i ^.i eohenMa 
 i^'iisar^ 
 
 ^hvut<a crtsa.\. y\ ^r^:t 
 
 And why does he here say ' I will 
 not henceforth drink': but after his 
 resurrection it is said that he ate 
 with them...? 
 
 Again that he made use of both of 
 these is clear from what Peter said 
 'We did eat with him and drink after 
 his resurrection.' 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 295 v.). 
 
 .(<ir<^asa KliiMi^ .en 
 
 This expression 'another Paraclete' 
 means ' another Comforter.' 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 306 r.). 
 
 . . . .«cnoov>(^ 3& 
 
 And unless he were in need of 
 receiving in order that he might be 
 made perfect, why, since he is &c. 
 
 Imitated by Isho'dad (f. 129 v.). 
 K'iiojaq ^jsa Ami »^_j^ 
 
KPHKEM ON THE GOSPEL. 
 
 87 
 
 timere eos, qui occidunt corpus, ani- 
 mam autem occidere non possunt: 
 quomodo, dioo, ipse mortem potuit 
 timere 1 
 
 M5singer, p. 239. 
 
 Matt, xxvii. 29. Et in corona ex 
 spmis...(\ma, Dominus per suam coro- 
 nam sustulit maledicta Adae primi; 
 ' Spinajs et tribulos tibi germinabit.' 
 
 MSsinger, p. 239. 
 
 Dederunt arundinem in mauu ejus 
 .... Et sicut arundine confirmantur 
 et ratae fiunt sententiae judicum, ita 
 et Dominus per arundinem scripsit et 
 ejecit e domo sua. 
 
 The influence of this curious con- 
 ceit that the reed in Christ's hand 
 was a writing reed may be seen also 
 in Ephrem's Hymn on the Crucifixion 
 (Lamy, i. 665). 
 
 fjsa »^_0_Lj«.iA» >A red 
 
 rCi^ 
 
 V 
 
 
 If He feared death, then He was 
 deficient in soul : Do not fear them 
 that kill the body &c. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 134 v.). 
 r^_^o^ r<''i.V'i.10 f^-sO— & 
 
 •^ 
 
 And by the thorns [is intended] 
 the abolition of the curse upon Adam ; 
 for 'Cursed is the ground for thy 
 sake : thorns and briers shall it bring 
 forth to thee.' 
 
 Imitated by Isho'dad (f. 134 v.). 
 
 An intimation that by it was can- 
 celled the instrument that was written 
 against us by the hand of Adam. 
 
 I.e. 
 
 ^aAsa.! cn.'uK' ^ocn ^i&ai vA.i 
 
 »^_ftjr^ r^VLO ^h\^ i^X>.i vyK'n 
 
 Blessings on thee also, thou reed of scorn, 
 In that to thee clave the hand of our king. 
 
88 EXTRACTS FROM THE COMMENTARY OF 
 
 The reed which fools made him hold for a type, 
 Who like a judge wrote, and released them. 
 
 It has also influenced the later commentators ; Bar-Salibi says 
 that 'by this scepter our Lord would cancel the Instrument of 
 obligation which was written against us by Adam.' The coinci- 
 dence with Isho'dad is exact. 
 
 Mosinger, p. 237. Ephrem, Hymn, in Besurr. (ed. Lamy, 
 
 Matt. xxvi. 65. Mense Arech, flores ' " ''' 
 
 simis suos rumpimt et egrediuntur, .^ocojisft^ H^c* ■ ""•*-' 
 
 sinibusque suis nudis et inanibus -^ 
 
 relictis ipsi aUorum corona fiunt. Sic .«..aorx>:ilO . in^l O r<.Axn3k 
 
 quoque mense Arech summussacerdos % \\ ■ \ 
 
 sacerdotiumdirupitet nudum et inane .aut y 1^ %^ ^_aeai (' "■ '*^ ' 
 
 rehquit, et sacerdotium transiit et in ^ •• ^v ^i i 
 
 Salvatore nostro collatum est. * ^ 
 
 A^^Vk. .i& oA ca^niT. 
 
 In Nisan the flowers burst their cups 
 
 (lit. bosoms) 
 And their roses come forth ; 
 They leave their cups in nakedness 
 And become a crown for others : 
 As is Kisan, so is its feast. 
 On the feast the high priest rent his 
 
 garments {lit. sinus) 
 And the priesthood fled from him. 
 And left him naked 
 And was spread over our Saviour. 
 
 As was pointed out above (p. 8), we have here an actual piece 
 of Ephrem's poetry disguised as prose. The Armenian translator 
 has misunderstood some points or abbreviated his text. He was 
 perhaps puzzled with the expression ' as is Nisan, so is its feast,' 
 and consequently ' sic quoque mense Nisan ' has become attached 
 to the next sentence. 
 
EPHREH ON THE GOSPEL. 
 
 89 
 
 Mosiuger, p. 243. 
 
 Luke xziiL 31. Si in liffuo viridi 
 hoe faoiunt. Per oomparationem 
 Dominus 'lignum viride' suam divini- 
 tatem et 'lignum aridum' eos appella- 
 vit^ qui dona ejus acceperunt. 
 
 Aut 'lignum viride' dixit, quia mi- 
 racula fedt, et ' lignum aridum' justos 
 vocat, quia facta mirabilia non feoe- 
 runt 
 
 Miisinger, p. 245. 
 
 John six. 23. Tunica ejus non est 
 scissa, quae imago est divinitatis ejus, 
 quae non dividitur, quia non est com- 
 posita. Quod vestimentum ejus divi- 
 sum est in quatnor partes, significat 
 Evangelium in quatuor partes mundi 
 ^;ressnrum. 
 
 Isho'dad (£ 228 r.). 
 
 
 .ui\^ 
 
 Mar Ephiem interprets the green 
 wood of the power of his Divinity, 
 but the diy wood of his disciples... or 
 the green wood on account of the 
 miracles which he did ; the dry wood 
 is the one who is destitute of this. 
 
 Isho'dad (f. 310 t.). 
 
 Ga\}^f^o .r8*^f\Aoo i<:Ao 
 co&«i a 00.1 f^tt* '\ft \o 
 
 MarEphrem: The tunic which was 
 not rent signifies his divinity, which 
 is neither rent nor divided : and the 
 robe that is divided into four parts 
 signifies the division of his body and is 
 a type of his Gospel which [goes] to 
 the four quarters (Matt, xsriii 19; 
 Mark xvL 15, 20) : [or was it ' which 
 is composed of four faces' T] 
 
90 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THK COMMENTARY OF 
 
 Mosinger, p. 257. 
 
 Aut quia typi viderunt agnum typi- 
 cum, sciderunt velum et stipati egressi 
 sunt ad eum aut spiritus prophetiae 
 habitans in templo, qui descenderat 
 ut hominibus adventum ejus praodi- 
 caret, tunc avolando ascendit, etc. 
 
 Imitated by Isho'dad (f. 136 v.). 
 
 r^iXM i.ajjao Kli.va K'.Tm 
 ^^iito .cDQaAo^ 'jLi.i 
 ca-ssn A< I 1 T .1 A..ioft T \ 
 
 r«L.Moi.i f<h\a a i \^o 
 
 .r«:,z..iaa.i 
 
 The veil of the temple was rent; 
 which was a type that was annulled ; 
 first, because it could not bear the 
 suffering of its archetype ; second, to 
 shew that the Divine Shekinah had 
 withdrawn from it and the grace of 
 the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Mosinger, p. 266. 
 
 Matt, xxvii. 66. Obsignarunt sepulcrum ejus, quod pro Christo et contra 
 eos accidit, ut in Daniele et Lazaro. Quum in lacu DanieUs sigillum suum 
 viderent, cognoacere poterant, quaUs potentia liberaverat eum.... 
 
 [Ephrem makes the same comparison with Daniel in his Sermo ad Noat. 
 Dora. Remrr. (Lamy, vol. i. p. 530). 
 
 A^r<UJ.1.1 
 
 cos 
 
 CX^ 
 
 
 i.e. The grave of Jesus was like the pit of Daniel which was closed and 
 its mouth sealed.] 
 
 Corpus suum ex sepulcro signato eduxit et sigillum sepulcri testis fiebat 
 sigillo uteri quern obsignaverat. 
 
 [Which figure will also be found in 
 the sermon just quoted : 
 
 1 Cod. JLI 
 
 Imitated by Bar-Sahbi. 
 
 'As he arose from the Virgin's 
 womb without breaking the seals and 
 virginity of her who bore him; so 
 from his own virgin tomb did he 
 
EPHREM ON THE GOSPEL. 
 
 91 
 
 r^l-\oi\ a r<l_i.i 
 
 
 i.e. As our Lord Jesus rose and 
 came forth and was raised, without 
 destroying the seals of his tomb : so 
 he did not destroy the virginity of 
 her that bare him.]' 
 
 arise, the marks, seals and stones 
 entire and inviolate.' (Loftus, p. 50.) 
 
 And by Isho'dad (f. 138 r.). 
 cuiivLK* r^A xj^ .T\'\ lo 
 
 And in this first birth he was bom 
 and came forth without dissolving 
 her virginity: and in this second 
 birth he came forth from the tomb, 
 the seals and stones being kept intact 
 together. 
 
 > The parallel between the womb and the tomb is a favourite one with the 
 Fathers : it appears in English literature in G. Herbert's lines. 
 
 Thou hadst a virgin womb 
 
 And tomb; 
 A Joseph did betroth 
 
 Them both. 
 
CONCLUDING KEMARKS. 
 
 The foregoing collection of agreements between the Com- 
 mentary ascribed to Ephrem and the works of later Syriac Com- 
 mentators will be sufficient to finally dissipate any residual 
 scepticism as to the substantial authorship of the famous Com- 
 mentary and as to the text upon which it is based. No one who 
 is the least versed in Quellen-Kritik would have any doubt as to 
 the dependence of the later Syriac commentators upon the 
 Ephrem Commentary, even if they had transcribed their extracts 
 without the frequent introductory formula that ' Mar Ephrem 
 says.' Nor would any one who was acquainted with the writings 
 of the great Syrian father fail to recognise that the Commentary 
 (even if it had come down to us anonymously) was so full of 
 Ephrem's ideas, and of extracts from his hymns and discourses 
 that it could have been identified as his independently of any 
 superscription or tradition. The only direction in which doubt 
 could enter would be in the possible case of a commentary made 
 up, say, by an affectionate disciple, from Ephrem's works with 
 some amalgamated matter from other sources and published under 
 Ephrem's name. 
 
 There are some things in the Commentary which appear to 
 invite the supposition, and when we remark that an actual disciple 
 of Ephrem, named Mar Abba, is credited with a commentary on 
 the Gospel, we may very well ask whether there is any reason to 
 suppose two commentaries on the Gospel to have been written in 
 such close literary proximity. Is it possible that the Commentary 
 of Mar Abba is the same as the Ephrem Commentary ? 
 
 The answer must, however, be in the negative. There are a 
 number of extracts from the Commentary of Mar Abba preserved 
 in the British Museum MS. Add. 17,194, but, while they shew some 
 dependence upon Ephrem, as is natural in the work of a pupil, 
 they shew also remarkable independence. 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 93 
 
 As nothing of Mar Abba has been published, as far as I know, 
 and he ranks amongst the earliest Syrian fathers, I transcribe 
 some sentences. 
 
 (Cod. Add. 17,194, fol. 48 b.) 
 t-S« ^-•varc' ^i-sa.! 00.1 ■ *« \h\ r^LarC ^ijaan 
 
 or^ ^a^aoa oiiaK' Or*' .Kllm^.i r^:u^,sa t<aaji^^ 
 i^Taa t ^'-n s a-a Aj^rC.i ^.i ^eo ^ ,__j^ -« -^.i*^ 
 
 • peaiao^.l r^sao* .^cno^rt'.i K'^ifla:^^ «^&.ax..i 
 
 eoL.i retoeo rOm&an iiflK'.l kIaJM.i .^^ca^&ciM.'io 
 r<U(i> Aa&cd i<lscn ^ ....^iaa.'i cn.iloM.i r^iux..i 
 Goa iaiuaoi<'.-| pa_»x^ ^ijL^ ^osoii^r^.l — *• v ■ -■ » 
 e n i\yn r^aeo k^mv ^flojJLa.i jw.vioa coisa .^Lucu 
 r<l&r<daa 'isart'.i ^cn A^a >^_^ \ \ -t cD.\Aek-sa.i 
 f<Ui^iusa.i coA (<'i&v.z..i f<lMi_> r<lica:i .>->vsaA 
 
 i.e. of Mar Abba, the disciple of Mar Ephrem, from the Commentary on the 
 Gospel. It came to pass, as he was ministering in the order and custom of the 
 priests, either for a month of days or from time to time ; from the words that 
 he brought incense [into the Sanctuary] it was in the seventh month and on 
 the tenth day of the month which is the day of their fast and humiUation. 
 It is likely that he said that he was among the priests of the very year of the 
 birth of our Lord ; from this seventh month, therefore, which is the former 
 Teshiin in which John was announced, it is known that in the month Nisan 
 was the conception of him whose birth was in the month Canun, on account 
 of what the angel said to Mary, This is the sixth month to her that is called 
 barren. 
 
 The reader will notice the agreement with Ephrem in the 
 dates assigned. But the identification of the day that the Angel 
 appeared to Zacharias with the Day of Atonement, does not seem 
 to be expressly made in Ephrem. 
 
 (Fol. 59 a.) 
 
 vyu^ 
 
94 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 ^ (1. .4MCM.1) TM-w.i ^n relsa.ima .K'ioA »^_ja\tr<'^ 
 
 ■•^^ocaa Ihcnr^ w^io>\cw*aa ocn r^JSOMil .«..OcfaA«a& 
 
 i.e. of Mar Abba, disciple of Mar Ephrem, from the Commentary on the 
 Gospel. I/ihi/ right eye : i.e. if beauty that is near to thee makes thee to err, 
 cut it off cmd coat it from thee ; it is profitable for thee that without thy 
 beloved and thy administrator and burden-bearer thou shouldtt enter the 
 kingdom and not that thou and they depart into the fire. With the members 
 whose excision is useful to us he compares the injurious friend. 
 
 A reference to the correaponding interpretation from Ephrem, 
 printed on p. 50, will shew that this is quite an independent piece 
 of work. 
 
 The same is true of the following extract. 
 
 (Fol. 74 b.) 
 K^aliil r<z..ias ...^oX^^ Kll .«^_aA^or^.'l r<nx.t\<\ 
 
 i.e. of Mar Abba, the disciple of Mar Ephrem, from the Commentary on the 
 GospeL Do not give the holy to the dogt, nor ecut the pearls before the swine : 
 he calls those who mocked at the new x^reaching dogs and swine ; likely they 
 were the priests and Pharisees, who after the teaching that the Apostles 
 taught, blasphemed and imprisoned the Apostles. 
 
 Probably this will suffice to shew the difference between the 
 Abba Commentary and the Ephrem Commentary*. 
 
 ' An interesting question arises whether Abba's Commentary was also on the 
 Diatessaron. Our extracts include Matthew and Luke : and as it is U priori unlikely 
 that Abba commented on the whole series of Gospels, this is in favonr of a belief 
 that the text commented on was a Harmony.- Bat farther it will be noticed that in 
 the second extract, the text of Matt. v. 29 is expanded by the words ' that thou 
 sbonldest enter the kingdom,' which appears to be Mark ix. 47. There seems to be 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 95 
 
 So far as Abba is concerned, the supposition that the Com- 
 mentary is the work of a pupil of Ephrem breaks down. But 
 there remains the further question whether perhaps some other 
 disciple may have used up his master's materials in making a 
 Commentary. But here we are in the region of pure speculation, 
 and had better turn back to more solid ground. 
 
 This hypothesis, that the Commentary is the work of a disciple, 
 differs so little from that which directly ascribes the composition 
 of the whole series of comments to Ephrem, that it may safely be 
 left for further consideration until such time as the book is 
 worthily edited and honoured with a scientific analysis of the 
 method of its composition. 
 
 With this possible reservation, we may ascribe the Com- 
 mentary to Ephrem, and the reader will have noticed for himself 
 how many strands there are in the evidence for the authorship : if 
 it was not Ephrem'is work, almost the whole Syrian Church was 
 deceived in the matter, and they were, of all people, the ones that 
 were likely to know. On this point, then, it is superfluous to 
 say more at present. 
 
 Nor is it necessary to multiply words with regard to the text 
 that underlies the Commentary : for, while it is true that there is 
 some confusion in the later Syrian fathers in the statements which 
 they make with regard to the Diatessaron of Tatian and Ephrem's 
 use of it, and this confusion may, perhaps, be a little more wide- 
 spread than has been hitherto imagined, still, on tracing the 
 various statements to their earliest forms, we find that all confusion 
 disappears, and we have a consistent body of evidence as to the 
 identification of Tatian's Harmony with the Gospel of the Mehallete 
 or Combined Gospels to which the Syrian fathers refer. A pretty 
 instance of fresh evidence will be found on p. 19, where a curious 
 reading is ascribed by one father to the Diatessaron and by 
 another to the Mehallete, where a comparison of the statements 
 made will shew that the same work is intended. But it is un- 
 necessary to spend time in elaborating the argument for the 
 identification of the text of Tatian with that commented on by 
 Ephrem. 
 
 I now proceed to dtaw attention to one or two supplementary 
 
 some reason for the suggestion that Abba was also worMng' on the Diatessaron, 
 even though the evidence be too slight to decide the question definitely. (Note 
 also Evangelium in the singular number.) 
 
96 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 matters which come up in connexion with the preceding investiga- 
 tion : and first of all, with regard to the extracts which Isho'dad 
 makes from Ephrem, which are not to be found in the Com- 
 mentary on the Gospel. 
 
 I find, on reference to the Questions of Isho' bar Nun on the 
 Scriptures, of which a copy is in the S.P.O.K. collections that 
 this father makes a number of solutions to the proposed difficulties 
 in the Gospels by reference to the works of Ephrem. And two 
 curious features present themselves ; one, that he never seems to 
 quote the Commentary of Ephrem on the Gospel ; the other, that 
 he makes a number of extracts which are very like the unidentified 
 passages from Ephrem in the pages of Isho'dad, and appear to be 
 derived from a common collection of Ephrem extracts. It will 
 thus appear that Isho' bar Nun was not acquainted with the Com- 
 mentary of Ephrem, or at all events had no access to a copy when 
 he was writing his book of Questions ; while, on the other hand, 
 he had access to other matter taken from Ephrem which was of 
 the nature of a collection of Comments on the Gospel. 
 
 For example, in the MS. referred to, we find as follows : 
 
 (Fol. 84 r.) 
 xsar^ .<!■& .mA ytr^Jio r<l^i^.i GriL>io.i r^h\OA,x&a^ 
 
 This is almost exactly the quotation which we have printed on 
 p. 23. 
 
 And the next question in Isho' bar Nun relates to a question 
 which is discussed shortly after by Isho'dad as to the reason why 
 Pilate's wife did not tell her dream ; concerning which he remarks 
 as follows : 
 
 ' Univ. Cant. Add. 2017. 
 
CONCLUDING EEMARKS. 97 
 
 The last part of this extract agrees nearly with the closing 
 words of Isho' dad's extract from Ephrem which we have printed 
 on p. 23 ; but it is clear that Isho' dad could not have taken it 
 directly from Isho' bar Nun. 
 
 One more instance shall be given of the use of some common 
 collection by these two fathers : 
 
 On £ 90 r. Isho' bar Nun discourses of the Samaritan woman, 
 as follows : 
 
 r^H-Mt^ ft \ M.io .r^'i 1 \^ ^^^a KlJcn r<lz.i^ ^ 
 r^.lJBaa* (^H-sajL A< i i -i.i A.\^o .r<*xi-i qnfta ftii .i 
 dCn r^^t^rC Auaia f^ia^ ru.l K'^^i^ .s^it.i r<'ocn 
 v^sajL r^iji^.i .cni ^i-saKto ocn.i ^ JUrc* inoX 
 
 This extract should be compared with the following from 
 Isho'dad, fol. 259 r. ; 
 
 f^.lOcaA T99^ ^'vaiu9or<'.n vyr^ .K'"ia\^ Au\a -co 
 ^ocn f^3JaB.M.i AJ^Lsao .a3itft.&^o.z. ^sa ruju coA&n 
 
 .cn.Tjaau ins-ia .ift.w\ti 
 
 The common matter in these two traditions is evident, and 
 both writers profess to be retailing Ephrem; but it is not the 
 Commentary that they quote, if we mayjudge from the Armenian. 
 
 We suspect then that both writers have access to some other 
 H. D. 7 
 
98 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 Commentary on the Gospels in which Ephrem is freely quoted, or 
 to some collection of extracts from Ephrem. 
 
 I pass on in the next place to consider some curious coin- 
 cidences between the Ephrem Commentary and the Commentaries 
 of the Venerable Bede, which suggest that the extreme East and 
 West are in contact at some unknown Patristic point. 
 
 In his Commentary on Luke c, 1, (ed. Giles, Vol. i. p. 280), 
 Bede says : 
 
 Joannes ergo interpretatur in quo est gratia, vel Domini gratia. 
 
 Cf. Mosinger, p. 12. Joannes, quod nomen indicat, nos misericordia 
 indigere. 
 
 Bede (p. 284). Et ocmUtabat se mensibits quinque etc.... Elisabeth.. .de ipsis 
 quae accipere oupiebat donis erubesoit, et licet de ablato gaudeat opprobrio 
 sterilitatis, de partu tamen anilis verecundatur aetatis. 
 
 Cf. Mosinger, p. 15 ut supra. 
 
 Bede (p. 287). De utroque potest intelligi, quod dioitur de domo David. 
 
 Cf. Mosinger, p. 16. Alio loco eadem Scriptura dixit, utrumque, Josephum 
 et Mariam, esse ex domo David. 
 
 The interpretation of Bede coincides with that of Tatian, 
 Ephrem, and the Sinai Syriac. 
 
 Bede (p. 293). £t intravit in domum Zachariae, et salutavU Elitabeth.... 
 Maria ad Elisabeth, Dominus venit ad Joannem...majorumque humiliatio 
 minorum est utique exaltatio. 
 
 Cf. Mosinger, p. 17. Maria surgens abiit ad Elisabeth, quae minor ea 
 erat, sicut et Dominus ad Joannem venit. 
 
 Bede (p. 345). Et ne coeperitis dicere, patrem habemus Abraham, etc. 
 Quid enim lapides...Nec immerito lapidum nomine gentes significatae sunt, 
 quae lapides ooluerunt ; unde scriptum est. Similes illis fiant qui faoiunt et 
 omnes qui confidtmt in eis. 
 
 Cf. Mosinger, p. 40. Ea; lapidibits istis...ex adoratoribus lapidum et 
 lignorum. 
 
 Bede (p. 346). Et notandum securim non juxta ramos positam, sed ad 
 radicem dicit. 
 
 Cf. Mosinger, p. 39. Et perdet ramos sylvae securi, dixit Isaias. Bramos 
 dixit, non radices.. ..Usque ad radicem arboris, quod Isaias praetermiserat. 
 
 Bede (p. 391). Et vidit duas naves stantes secus stagnum. Duae naves 
 secus stagnum positae, circumcisionem et praeputium figurant. 
 
 Cf. Mosinger, p. 59. Duae naves sunt circumcisio et praeputium. 
 
 Bede (p. 393). Mergi naves est, homines in seculum, ex quo elati per 
 fidem fuerant, morum pravitate relabi. 
 
 Cf. Mosinger (p. 59). Quibus verbis doctrina Prophetarum signiflcatur, de 
 excelso missa in mundum, qui per mare repraesentatus est. 
 
 Bede (Vol. ii. p. 143). Immundus quippe spiritus exiit a Judaeis, 
 quando acceperunt legem. Et ambulavit per loca arida quaerens sibi 
 requiem. Expulsus, videlicet, a Judaeis, ambulavit per gentium solitudines. 
 
CONCLtTDING KEMARKS. 99 
 
 Cf. MOsinger (p. 121). Quvun Deus eis salvatorem misisset, qui eos 
 educeret (sc. ex Aegypto), ille imnrandus aufugit et sanati sunt...Ille igitur 
 immundus ex eis expulsus transivit per loca arida, Le. per gentes. 
 
 An examination of the foregoing parallels will shew curious 
 agreement in the underlying ideas, as well as actual coincidences 
 of language and of text. The question is, What does the com- 
 munity of ideas imply ? A reference to the sources from which 
 Bede draws his comments will help us to take the first step in the 
 solution of the problem. We gather from his dedicatory letter to 
 Acca that he drew upon Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory the Great, 
 &c. And the last named is undoubtedly responsible for a number 
 of the sentences quoted above. For example, in Gregory's twen- 
 tieth Homily on the Gospel, we find the sentence ' nee immerito 
 lapidum nomine gentes significatae sunt, quia lapides coluerunt, 
 unde scriptum est : Similes illis fiant qui faciunt ea et omnes qui 
 confidunt in eis,' which is almost verbatim and literatim what we 
 have above in Bede. 
 
 In the same Homily the words "Securim non juxta ramos 
 positam sed ad radicem dicit " go over without change into Bede. 
 
 We may conclude that some (if not all) of the coincidence 
 which we detect between the early Eastern and late Western 
 commentaries is due to the use of extracts from the works of 
 Gregory the Great. What then are the common sources of 
 Ephrem and Gregory, or does Gregory borrow from Ephrem? 
 This is a more difficult question to answer. But we may see some 
 of the difficulties disappear if we observe that much of the com- 
 mon matter under discussion is earlier than Ephrem. For example, 
 compare the extract from Bede, in which he explains what are the 
 stones of which children are to be raised up to Abraham, with the 
 following passage from Origen's 22nd Homily on Luke : 
 
 De quibus lapidibus 1 Non utique lairides irrationabiles corporeosque 
 monstrabat, sed homines insensibiles et quondam duros, qui quia lapides et 
 ligna adorabant, impletum est illud quod in psalmo cantabatur : ' Similes illis 
 fiunt qui faciunt ea et omnes qui confidunt eis.' 
 
 The coincidence is now not one between Bede (i.e. Gregory) 
 and Ephrem, but between Origen and Ephrem. 
 
 Now the reader has probably noticed that most of the coin- 
 cidences to which we have drawn attention above are due to inter- 
 
100 qONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 pretations of a very simple character, constituting a sort of Targum 
 on the text, like the equation between ' the two ships ' and ' the 
 two peoples,' and the like. 
 
 And it admits of demonstration that these glosses are of very 
 high antiquity ; take, for example, the explanation that the sea 
 stands for the world, which is a favourite with Ephrem. We find 
 the same explanation underlying the passage in Aphraates (col. 41), 
 
 Nolite haesitare, ne demergamini in mundum, velut Simon, qui cum 
 dubitasset, demergi coepit in mare ; 
 
 a passage, by the bye, which Zahn seems to us to have too hastily 
 carried back into the Diatessaron, without detaching the gloss from 
 the text. 
 
 We suspect then that there is a primitive Targum on the 
 Gospel, from which this and similar glosses come : and the very 
 same thing is suggested by such passages as that quoted on p. 72 
 from Moses bar Kepha, where the writer is in parallelism with 
 Ephrem, but betrays their common source to be a succinct Com- 
 mentary upon Matthew. And indeed Origen himself implies the 
 existence of such primitive commentaries in a remarkable passage 
 in his 34th Homily on Luke. 
 
 Aiebat quidam de presbyteris volens parabolam interpretari, hominem qui 
 descendit esse Adam, Jerusalem paradisum ; Jericho, mundum *; latrones, 
 contrarias fortitudines ; sacerdotem, legem; Levitam, propbetas ; Samaritam, 
 Christum ; vulnera vero, inobedientiam ; animal, corpus Domini ; pando- 
 chium [id est stabulum]^, quod imiversos volentes introire suscipiat, 
 Ecclesiam interpretari. 
 
 Here, then, we have an actual specimen of an early Targum ; 
 and the influence may be felt in Patristic literature. For example, 
 Bede (ii. 126) begins his interpretation of the parable as follows : 
 
 Homo iste, Adam intelligitur in geuere humane, Hierusalem, ci vitas pacis 
 ilia caelestis, a cujus beatitudine lapsus, in banc mortalem miseramque 
 vitam devenit ; 
 
 and goes on 
 
 plagae, peccata sunt... ; jumentum ejus est oaro, etc. ; 
 
 through which it is easy to see the shining of the primitive inter- 
 pretation. 
 
 ' Hence, perhaps, Marcion's theory that our Lord descended at Jericho: cf. 
 Barnes in Academy, Oct. 20, 1893. 
 ^ Buffinus' explanation? 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 101 
 
 A volume might be written on the persistence of such early 
 elucidations. 
 
 We suspect, then, as we have said, that it is to such a primitive 
 Targum of the Presbjrters that we are to look for the explanation 
 of many of the coincidences in interpretations and glosses between 
 Eastern and Western, and Syrian and non-Syrian fathers. The 
 subject is an interesting one, and demands a closer examination. 
 For the present we content ourselves with making suggestions as 
 to the method of pursuing the enquiry, and prophecies as to its 
 probable result. 
 
 Since writing the foregoing lines I have seen Goussen's just 
 published Apocalypsis Versio Sahidica, to which is appended a 
 collection of extracts from the Diatessaron taken from a MS. of 
 Isho'dad at Berlin (Cod. Sachau 311). Goussen adds to our collec- 
 tion a passage from the beginning of a Comm. on the Acts of the 
 Apostles which gives the names of the twelve Apostles as they 
 stood in the Diatessaron. (My copy of Isho'dad is confined to the 
 Four Gospels.) 
 
 The extract is as follows : 
 
 .^n-at oJLa ^iMCua oQ n..v.*0 .•»eoA.»»r^ oooi<''i.TJre'o 
 
 •^ ' « <" ^^_^*fc*aa T.o .,« °>\ ij i-a rcU-aA qft n %. .o 
 K'ocn.i ocn r^!\^cui.&fio rC.iocn^o .sOa^* \sa r^.iocix»o 
 
 an arrangement of the names which, as Zahn points out (Theol. 
 LiL-Blatt, Oct; 18, 1895), has influenced the text of the Lewis 
 Codex in Matt. x. 
 
Catnbttlige : 
 
 PBINTED BY J. AND C. F. CLAY, 
 AT THE UNIVERSITY PBESS.