Singer of the Word of God: Ephrem the Syrian and his Significance in Late Antiquity 9781463239619

Citation preview

Singer of the Word of God

Sebastianyotho

1 Series Editor

George A. Kiraz

The Sebastianyotho series was launched to celebrate Sebastian P. Brock’s prolific contributions to the field of Syriac studies for over half a century. Each volume in the series collects his works on a specific theme and includes new material. Covering a wide range of topics, the series becomes an indispensable encyclopedia on Syriac Christianity. The title of the series is formed from Sebastian, as he is called by his colleagues and students—a testimony to his humility, and the Syriac suffix -yotho creating a plural abstract noun that denotes the idea and quality of Brock and his work.

Singer of the Word of God

Ephrem the Syrian and his Significance in Late Antiquity

Sebastian P. Brock

gp 2020

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2020 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC.

‫ܐ‬

1

2020

ISBN 978-1-4632-3922-0

A Cataloging-in-Publication Record is available from the Library of Congress. Printed in the United States of America

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... v Series Foreword..................................................................................................................... vii Author’s Foreword ................................................................................................................ ix 1

2 3 4 5 6

Some reflections on the wider significance of St Ephrem and the Syriac tradition ........................................................................................................................... 1 St Ephrem and his importance for today ................................................................. 11 The many faces of St Ephrem ................................................................................... 19 In search of St Ephrem ............................................................................................... 25 The changing faces of St Ephrem as read in the West .......................................... 39 The Armenian Life of St Ephrem and its Syriac source ........................................ 53

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

THEMES St Ephrem, singer of the word of God .................................................................... 67 The poet as theologian ................................................................................................ 81 Theology through poetry: the example of St Ephrem .......................................... 91 St Ephrem and his ‘sea of symbols’ ........................................................................ 103 St Ephrem the Syrian on reading Scripture ...........................................................117 The use of the New Testament in the writings of Mor Ephrem ...................... 129 St Ephrem on women in the Old Testament ........................................................ 141 The guidance of St Ephrem: a vision to live by .................................................... 151

15 16 17

PARTICULAR TEXTS Ephrem’s Letter to Publius ...................................................................................... 163 The poetic artistry of St Ephrem: an analysis of H. Azym. III. ........................ 203 St Ephrem on Christ as Light in Mary and in the Jordan (H. de Ecclesia 36) ..................................................................................................... 209 A Hymn of St Ephrem on the Eucharist ...............................................................217 Ephrem’s verse homily on Jonah and the repentance of Nineveh ................... 225 ‘Blessed is that old age which has grown old with good deeds’: A neglected poem attributed to St Ephrem...........................................................241

18 19 20

v

vi 21

22 23 24

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD TRANSMISSION The transmission of Ephrem’s madrashe in the Syriac liturgical tradition ....................................................................................................................... 255 St Ephrem in the eyes of the later Syriac liturgical tradition..............................271 Greek words in Ephrem and Narsai: a comparative sampling ..........................289 A brief guide to the main editions and translations of the works of St Ephrem ................................................................................................................... 301

Index ..................................................................................................................................... 363

SERIES FOREWORD The Sebastianyotho series was launched in 2018 on the occasion of Sebastian P. Brock’s 80th birthday to celebrate his prolific contributions to the field of Syriac studies for over half a century. Each volume in the series collects his works on a specific theme and includes new material. Covering a wide range of topics, the series becomes an indispensable encyclopedia on Syriac Christianity. The title of the series is formed from Sebastian, as he is called by his colleagues and students—a testimony to his humility, and the Syriac suffix -yotho creating a plural abstract noun that denotes the idea and quality of Brock and his work. As the first volume of the Sebastianyotho series, this book collects Sebastian P. Brock’s articles related to Ephrem the Syrian. The articles cover a wide array of topics, including a biographical overview of the saint, an exposition of St. Ephrem’s importance for Christianity today and his relevance as a theologian, an analysis of some of his works, and a bibliographic guide to editions of these works. While most of the articles were previously published, many are updated and some are published in English for the first time. George A. Kiraz

vii

AUTHOR’S FOREWORD The contents of this volume had their origin in a variety of different journals and other publications, in some cases only in an Italian translation (chapters 7 and 10). While most of the chapters were addressed to an academic readership, several were originally written for a wider public; as a result there is a certain amount of overlap and inconsistency between some of the chapters. Everything has been typeset anew, but at the same time the original pagination has been indicated throughout. Crossreferences have been updated, and a few further minor changes have been made, notably in chapter 24, which has been brought up to date. I am deeply indebted to Dr George Kiraz, who conceived the idea of this series as one of his innumerable services, through the Gorgias Press, to Syriac studies: ‫ܡܢܘ‬ ̇ ‫ ̇ܣܦܩ ܠܡܩܒܠܘ ܛܝܒܘܬܟ ܐܝܟ‬. My great ‫ܕܘ�܆ ܐܘ ܡܠܦܢܐ ܓܘܪܓܝ ܒܪ ܐܢܛܘܢ‬ thanks are also due to the staff of the Gorgias Press, and especially to Jana Safley and to Brandon Allen who typeset the book and prepared the index. Likewise I am most grateful to the original publishers and editors for permission to republish these articles. Sebastian P. Brock

ix

1

SOME REFLECTIONS ON THE WIDER SIGNIFICANCE OF ST EPHREM AND THE SYRIAC TRADITION * At the end of one of his Hymns on Faith (no. 52) the great fourth-century poet and theologian St Ephrem prayed for the unity of the divided Christians of his day, using words that are just as applicable today: From all the churches there may be A single Church of Truth: Let her children be gathered, Righteous in her bosom, And may we confess Your goodness. Praise to Your reconciliation!

Using this quotation from St Ephrem as my starting point, my aim here is to offer some thoughts on why St Ephrem in particular, and the Syriac tradition in general, are so important for the universal Christian Church, and not just for those Churches which are of Syriac liturgical tradition. It was a prophetic act on the part of Pope Benedict {39} XV when, in 1920, at a time when the true significance of St Ephrem had not yet been fully appreciated, he declared St Ephrem to be a Doctor of the Universal Church. Ironically, St Ephrem’s fame has not served him well, for over the centuries a very large number of works not by him have been attributed to him, not only in Syriac, but also (and above all) in Greek; and in many cases these works have been totally unworthy of Ephrem, both in respect of their poetic qualities (or rather, lack of them), and for their often banal theological content. In many ways it was not until the critical editions of St Ephrem’s works published over the course of the last half century, by Dom Edmund Beck, Dom Louis Leloir and others, that it has at last become possible to make a satisfactory distinction between what is genuine Ephrem, and what is definitely not, and to begin to appreciate his stature, both as a poet and as a theologian. 48.

*

Originally published in Asian Horizons [Dharmaram College, Bangalore] 2 (2008), 38–

1

2

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

Thanks to these modern editions it is now possible to re-discover St Ephrem and to perceive something of his real significance, not only for the early Christian Church, but also for today. The task of re-discovering the thought world of the genuine St Ephrem was in many ways pioneered by Fr. Robert Murray in his wonderful book Symbols of Church and Kingdom. A Study in Early Syriac Tradition, first published in 1975, and recently (2004) re-issued by the Gorgias Press (USA) with a new and updated first chapter. Since 1975 the work of further exploring the character of Ephrem’s profound theological vision has been carried on by a number of other scholars; particularly valuable in this respect is the study by Kees den Biesen, entitled Simple and Bold. Ephrem’s Art of Symbolic Thought (2006). These studies of the last four decades have brought out the importance of St Ephrem as a theologian of great profundity as well as a poet of the first order. Theology, as conducted by St Ephrem, however, is a very different matter from theology as is generally understood in the western academic world. In the first place, he expresses his theology in verse, rather than in prose – and it is perhaps this fact that has generally obscured the significance of his theological approach in the eyes of modern professional theologians. Secondly, instead of employing any carefully defined terminology, his theological language gives at the first sight an impression of being vague and nebulous, and it is only after a close familiarity with his writings that it becomes clear that he is in fact presenting his readers with a carefully structured vision of the relationship between Creator and creation, and especially, between the Creator and one particular element within creation, namely, us human beings. The key term that he uses to describe this {40} relationship is raza, which happens to be extraordinarily difficult to translate in a satisfactory way: the plural, raze, ‘Mysteries’ is familiar enough from its use in connection with the Eucharistic Mysteries; and sometimes the term is used to represent the western Christian understanding of Sacrament. While Ephrem would be well familiar with the first sense, the second would be out of character with his way of thinking. In translating Ephrem’s poetry, very frequently I find that the most meaningful rendering for a modern reader is ‘symbol’, though with the immediate proviso that we are dealing with the patristic sense of this term, and not the popular modern one. The Fathers of the Church understand that there is an ontological link between symbol and what the symbol points to, whereas in popular usage a symbol is essentially different from what it symbolizes. Ephrem speaks of a ‘hidden power’ that unites the symbol with the divine reality to which it points. These raze are concealed everywhere, in both Scripture and the natural world: these two ‘the Book’ and ‘Nature’, serve as God’s two witnesses. These witnesses reach everywhere, Are found at all times, Are present at every moment, Rebuking the unbeliever who denies the Creator (Ephrem, Hymns on Paradise 5:2)

Wherever you turn your eyes, there is God’s symbol, Whatever you read, there you will find His types. (Ephrem, Hymns on Virginity 20:12)

1. THE WIDER SIGNIFICANCE OF ST EPHREM AND THE SYRIAC TRADITION

3

With the help of this ‘strong’ sense of ‘symbol’, Ephrem is able to present a cohering and dynamic picture of the interrelationship, on the vertical level between the divine reality and the human world, and on the horizontal level, between everyone and everything within creation. In this way everything has the potential of becoming endowed with meaning, since there exists what might be described as an intricate spidersweb linking everyone and everything together. The word ‘potential’ here in this context is important, since, in order to perceive these raze that are inherent everywhere, and so to discover meaning, a person needs, not only to make use of his or her interior eye of faith, but to ensure that it is kept pure and luminous, otherwise its vision will become clouded. The Scriptures are place there like a mirror, And the person whose eye is luminous beholds the image of reality. (Ephrem, Hymns on Faith 67:8)

Needless to say, such a theological vision is not without very considerable relevance for the many crises, ecological, social and financial, of the world today. It is not my intention here to explore Ephrem’s thought any further; for the present purposes I shall simply take him as a representative – indeed the greatest representative – of one end of the wide spectrum that makes up the Syriac tradition. At the other end of this spectrum I shall take Barhebraeus, even though he belongs to the West Syriac, rather than the East Syriac tradition. I do this, not for lack of similar learned figures of the Church of the East in the thirteenth century, but simply because he happens to be the most widely known Syriac author of that period. Barhebraeus, who died in 1286, provided encyclopedic syntheses of virtually every subject that was studied in his day. Amongst these works was his great theological compendium, entitled ‘The Candelabra of the Sanctuary. In many ways one could describe Barhebraeus as the Thomas Aquinas of the Syriac tradition. It so happens that the two men have much in common: not only were they contemporaries (St Thomas died in 1274, 12 years before Barhebraeus), but both were heirs of the hellenized (or perhaps one should say, Aristotelianized) approach to theology that had developed among the later Greek Fathers, among whom St John of Damascus, living in the eighth century, was the most famous representative. Reading Barhebraeus one quickly realizes that one is in a totally different intellectual world from that of St Ephrem – but an intellectual world that will be much more familiar to most modern theologians than that of St Ephrem. The significance of this situation for my general theme will (I hope) become clear later on in my paper. What I simply wish to emphasize at this point is that the wide spectrum of the Syriac tradition has two poles, 1 represented here by Ephrem and Barhebraeus. One might call these two poles the Semitic and the Greek pole, but since it is important {41}

This aspect is further explored in my contribution to Homage to Mar Cariattil (ed. C. Payngot CMI, Rome 1987), pp. 58–62. 1

4

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

to avoid the impression that the difference is due to an inherent difference between Semitic and Greek thought (an idea that was once fashionable among some biblical scholars), I shall use instead as symbolic terms for the two opposite ends of the spectrum ‘Jerusalem’ and ‘Athens’. At this point I would like to move on to a broader canvas, turning from just the Syriac tradition, to the Christian tradition as a whole. Western Christian tradition has regularly seen the Christian tradition as a whole consisting of two main elements, the Greek East and the Latin West, the former representing the various (Chalcedonian) Orthodox Churches, and the latter, the Roman Catholic and Reformed {42} traditions of the West. On a number of occasions I have suggested that this is, historically, an inadequate picture, since it virtually ignores the indigenous tradition of Christianity in both Western Asia (to Europeans, the Middle East), and of course India – not to mention Egypt and Ethiopia in Africa. In order to remedy this bipolar vision of Christian tradition, I have suggested using the term ‘Syriac Orient’ to represent this forgotten third tradition. It was of course perfectly understandable that Pope John Paul II, after his historic visit to the Ecumenical Patriarch in Istanbul in 1980, should have made use of this bipartite model of Latin West and Greek East when he made his now famous statement that the Church needed to learn to breathe once again through its ‘two lungs’. The image of the ‘two lungs’ evidently caught the popular imagination, but this was regrettable in that it simply reinforced the widespread idea that Christian tradition simply consisted of the two elements, Greek East and Latin West. In order to try to counteract this, I took the opportunity of an invitation to give the Donahue Lecture for 2004 at the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome, to entitle my lecture ‘The Syriac Orient: a third ‘lung’ for the Church?’ 2 Of course the idea of a ‘third lung’ goes against human physiology, but there is no reason why, on a purely spiritual level, the Church should not breath with three lungs. In any case, the prime point is that the ‘Syriac Orient’ also needs to be taken into consideration alongside the ‘Latin West’ and ‘Greek East’ if a properly balanced understanding of the Christian tradition as a whole is to be achieved. Once one sees the Christian tradition as essentially tri-partite rather than bipartite, then a further image becomes illuminating, this time illustrating the interrelationship of the three traditions as they reach us today. This image consists of three interlocking circles forming a triangle: each circle will be found to consist of three elements: one is a common core, where all three circles overlap, the second is where just two circles overlap, and the third is the area in each circle where there is no overlap. This last area represents what is distinctive in each tradition; this distinctive element needs to be seen, not as something divisive, but as indicating an aspect, or it may be, an emphasis, which each individual tradition can contribute to the life and functioning of the Church as a whole. By way of illustration, one might take these Subsequently published in Orientalia Christiana Periodica 71 (2005), and thence translated into Russian and Czech. 2

1. THE WIDER SIGNIFICANCE OF ST EPHREM AND THE SYRIAC TRADITION

5

areas of distinctiveness within each circle as representing a particular strength, in which case one might allocate ‘law’ to the Latin West, ‘philosophy’ to the Greek East, and ‘poetry’ to the Syriac Orient. These different ‘strengths’ need to be understood as complementary to one another, for all three are equally required for the well-being of the Church as a whole. {43} We need now to return to the sketch with which I started out, of the two ends, or poles, of the spectrum of Syriac Christianity, symbolized by ‘Jerusalem’ and ‘Athens’. How do these two fit into my image of the three circles? In each circle, the area where all three circles overlap represents the central core of the Christian message, common to all three traditions. What is of interest to us here, however, are the two other areas of the Syriac circle, for they represent the two poles, ‘Jerusalem’ and ‘Athens’, of the Syriac tradition: the area which is distinctive to the Syriac Orient corresponds especially to the ‘Jerusalem’ pole of the Syriac tradition, while the two areas where the Syriac circle overlaps, on the one side with the Greek circle, and on the other with the Latin one, correspond to the ‘Athens’ end of the spectrum. What is the significance of all this? The point that I am seeking to make is that the aspect of the Syriac Orient which is going to be of particular relevance and importance for the life of the Christian Church as a whole is the area where it has something distinctive to contribute, namely the ‘Jerusalem’ end of the spectrum. Whereas the ‘Athens’ end of the spectrum has a great deal in common with the theological approach of both the Latin West and the Greek East, this is definitely not the case with the ‘Jerusalem’ end of the spectrum. What then are the important distinctive features of the Syriac Orient from which both Latin West and Greek East can benefit? I shall begin with those features that are particularly characteristic of the ‘Jerusalem’ end of the spectrum. First and foremost is the approach to theology: Ephrem in particular offers a way of approaching theology that is radically different from what has become the norm everywhere today. That this is not because Ephrem’s approach is outdated is indicated by the similarities with the thought of such modern thinkers as Paul Ricoeur or Hans-Georg Gadamer which modern scholars have observed. Not, of course, that Ephrem’s ‘symbolic theology’ is necessarily better than other approaches, or that is should replace them – far from it!; rather, it needs to be seen as a valid complementary approach which can still prove relevant and illuminating in our modern context, one of its great merits being the use of everyday images to express theological ideas, thus making theology accessible to the ordinary Christian. A second important aspect that belongs especially to the ‘Jerusalem’ end of the spectrum is the therapeutic approach to penance. Christ is regularly understood as the ‘Physician’, and only very rarely as the ‘Judge’; sin as seen as a wound or a disease, for which repentance and {44} penance provide the medicine for healing. The importance in a modern context of this therapeutic model, provided above all in the Syriac tradition, was well brought out in a recent doctoral dissertation submitted in Rome by an Indian priest, Fr. Dominic Vechoor. A third important aspect lies in the very fact that Syriac is just a dialect of Aramaic, the everyday language of Jesus and of the Jewish society of his time. Early Syriac Christianity thus provides us with a transmitter of the Christian message in the closest form attainable to its original Semitic dress. Indicative of this is the fact that

6

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

the Lord’s Prayer, as still said today in Syriac, is virtually identical with modern scholars’ reconstruction of the first-century Aramaic wording of the prayer, translated back from the Greek Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Not surprisingly, then, it is early Syriac Christianity which retains the closest links with Christianity’s Jewish roots, and which shares many exegetical traditions with Rabbinic Judaism that are not preserved elsewhere in early Christianity. Three further distinctive features of the Syriac Orient that are of particular relevance today do not strictly belong to the ‘Jerusalem’ pole of the spectrum, but rather from some other point in the spectrum. Syriac writings on spirituality offer a number of distinctive features that can serve to enrich other traditions today. Three particular features might be singled out here very briefly: (1) the ideal of ihidayutha, literally, ‘singleness’; (2) the recurrent bridal imagery; and (3) the monastic writings from the Church of the East of the seventh and eighth centuries. As with the term raza, so too with the terms ihidaya and its derivative ihidayutha, there are no good English equivalents available. Although in due course of time, ihidaya came to mean ‘hermit’, it started out as the term for a person who had undertaken a consecrated life of discipleship of Christ the Ihida (Ihida being the Syriac translation of Greek monogenes, ‘only-begotten’, in St John’s Gospel). In the writings of Aphrahat and Ephrem in the fourth century, before Egyptian monasticism had taken hold in Mesopotamia, the connotations of the term ihidaya are particularly suggestive: in particular, the ihidaya aims at a life of singleness (that is, celibacy), of singleness of mind, and above all of imitation of the Ihida par excellence, Christ. Unlike the situation later, after the rise of monasteries, the ihidaye lived their consecrated life within the rest of the Christian community. It is {45} interesting to note that a similar ideal can be found in the recent institution of ‘Consecrated Virgins’ in the modern Roman Catholic Church If one reads the Weekday Office, or indeed almost any liturgical text, from any of the Syriac liturgical traditions, it can be observed that by far the most frequently found expression for the idea of the Kingdom of Heaven is ‘Bridal Chamber of light’, or ‘of joy’. Likewise bridal imagery is found pervasively in liturgical poetry, with Christ addressed as ‘the heavenly Bridegroom’, ‘Bridegroom of our souls’, etc. Although this imagery, with its great emphasis on the relationship of deep love between God and human beings, is found occasionally in the liturgical texts of other liturgical traditions, it is only in the Syriac that it is occurs with such emphasis and frequency. Its aim is, clearly, to point to the primacy of love at the very centre of the Christian message. As a third feature of especial note in the Syriac tradition of spirituality I take the writings of the great East Syriac monastic authors of the seventh and eighth centuries, Sahdona, Isaac, John of Dalyatha, Joseph the Seer, and others. It is remarkable that this flowering of monastic literature should have taken place at much the same time as the huge changes that were taking place in West Asia as a result of the Arab invasions. Many of the writings of these authors clearly have the ability to resonate with many modern readers, something that can most noticeably be seen in the considerable number of translations, into different modern languages, of works by St Isaac of Nineveh that have appeared in recent years.

1. THE WIDER SIGNIFICANCE OF ST EPHREM AND THE SYRIAC TRADITION

7

I turn next to what may at first seem a purely negative aspect of the Syriac tradition, which stems from the christological polemics of the fifth, sixth and seventh centuries, namely the split, subsequent to the Council of Chalcedon (451) into three different Churches, the Syrian Orthodox, the Church of the East, both rejecting the Council, but for different reasons, and the Chalcedonian Church (Melkite and Maronite) – with, of course, further divisions occurring during the last five hundred years. Out of this lamentable situation one valuable insight can been gained, though the realization of it has had to wait until ecumenical dialogue in very recent times. In the course of this dialogue it rapidly became abundantly clear that, underlying the verbally conflicting christological formulae of these three different traditions, there is a common understanding of what the Incarnation means, even though the ways in which this understanding is expressed are different, due to differing emphases, and to different connotations {46} given to the technical terms ‘nature’ and ‘hypostasis/qnoma’. A lesson that is of value to all the Churches can be learnt from this: that theological truths cannot be encapsulated in a single and exclusive definition of faith. (In parentheses, one might add that Ephrem long ago opposed any idea of providing ‘definitions’ of any aspect of the Godhead, since this implied setting limits on God who is Limitless). Finally, it is important to mention a purely geographical feature of the Syriac Orient: whereas both Greek East and Latin West are essentially European traditions of Christianity, the Syriac Orient is the only completely Asian one. This is obviously an immense advantage today in certain parts of the world where everything Western is regarded being tainted by it imperial and colonial past; furthermore, this aspect is of immense potential relevance for the rapidly growing Churches of Eastern Asia. Although these Churches, notably in China and Korea, originally received the Gospel message from Churches in the West, they would often welcome a greater awareness of the existence of a purely indigenous Asian tradition of Christianity: it would be good if more opportunities were provided to increase this awareness. By way of conclusion, as someone who is an outside observer, but who has a deep appreciation of the Syriac Orient, I would like to lay before you some brief thoughts concerning what seems to me to be of vital importance for all the Churches of Syriac tradition in India. First and foremost, the distinctive tradition of the Syriac Orient is something to be proud of, to be cherished, and to be shared. Though the Syriac Orient may appear from a purely worldly and material point of view to be just a poor relation of the Latin West and the Greek East; its spiritual and intellectual heritage are just as much to be valued as those of the Latin West and the Greek East, and so there is all the more reason to cherish it and to share it. In practical terms, this means imparting a good knowledge of it through teaching it in schools and especially in seminaries; and this in turn means maintaining a tradition of studying it in depth with, in every generation, some scholars with a sufficient knowledge of Syriac to enable them to draw on the abundance of riches that lie unexploited in the writings of the Syriac Fathers, and then to make these spiritual riches available through translations or adaptations into modern languages, not only for the benefit of the local Churches here in India, but also for the benefit of the Christian Church as a whole.

8

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

Having begun with St Ephrem, let me end by giving the word to St Ephrem, with some of his insights: {47}

Whoever is capable of investigating Becomes the container of what he investigates; A knowledge which is capable of containing the Omniscient Is greater than Him, For it has proved capable of measuring the whole of Him. A person who investigates the Father and Son Is thus greater than them! Far be it!, then, and something anathema, That the Father and Son should be investigated While dust and ashes exalts itself! (Ephrem, Hymns on Faith 9:16)

But at the same time Ephrem also stresses:

There is intellectual enquiry in the Church, Investigating what is revealed: The intellect was not intended to pry into the hidden Divinity, (Ephrem, Hymns on Faith 8:9) God’s Majesty that had clothed itself in all sorts of similitudes Saw that humanity did not want to find salvation through this assistance, So He sent His Beloved One who, instead of the borrowed similitude With which God’s Majesty had previously clothed Itself, Clothed Himself with real limbs, as the First-Born, And was mingled with humanity. He gave us what belonged to Him and took what belonged to us, So that this mingling of His might give life to our dead state. (Ephrem, Hymns against Heresies 32:9).

In the following quotation one needs to remember that mirrors in antiquity were not made of glass but of metal which needed to be kept constantly in a state of high polish if the mirror was to function properly: One complains about a mirror if its luminosity is darkened, Because it has become spotted, or dirt has built up, Covering it over for those who look into it. Refrain: Blessed is He who has polished our mirror! Beauty is no longer adorned in that mirror, Blemishes are no longer reproved in that reflection; {48} It is cause of offence as far as anyone beautiful is concerned, Seeing that their beauty gets no advantage from it In the form of adornments as profits. Blemishes can not longer be rooted out with its aid,

1. THE WIDER SIGNIFICANCE OF ST EPHREM AND THE SYRIAC TRADITION Adornments can not longer be added with its help; The blemish that now remains is a cause for offence, That no embellishment has taken place is a further loss: Offence and loss have met together. If our mirror is darkened This is altogether a source of joy to the morally ugly In that their blemishes are no longer reproved; Whereas if our mirror is polished and illumined, Then it is our freewill that has been adorned. (Ephrem, Nisibene Hymns 16:1–4)

9

2

ST EPHREM AND HIS IMPORTANCE FOR TODAY* The year 2006 has already witnessed two conferences in celebration of the 17th centenary of St Ephrem’s birth, one in Aleppo, {7} Syria, and another at the Abbaye de Ligugé in France; SEERI’s Sixth Syriac Conference also serves as a third such celebration. Appropriately, SEERI was represented both at Aleppo and at Ligugé. In reality, no one knows exactly when St Ephrem was born, and ‘circa 306’, which has become widespread in recent years, is nothing more than a reasonable guess. As so often happens with figures from the past, we are on much surer ground when it comes to the date of his death: this in all probability was on 9th June 373, and the 16th centenary of this was duly celebrated in Baghdad, Kaslik and (on a much smaller scale) also in Cambridge. What is so special about St Ephrem and why should he be celebrated in this way? What is his importance for us today? In order to provide some answers to these questions, we need to know whom exactly we mean by St Ephrem, for although he is a saint who is very familiar, above all in the Churches of Syriac liturgical tradition, nevertheless the traditional picture of him is not a little misleading: in fact, as we shall see, there are three different portraits of Ephrem available today, of which only one – which happens to be the least known – represents the real St Ephrem.

THREE DIFFERENT PORTRAITS OF ST EPHREM: TWO MISLEADING, ONE TRUE

The first and most influential portrait is the one presented by the Life of St Ephrem, preserved in a number of somewhat different Syriac recensions and in a Greek translation. The main points according to this biographical account are the following: once he had moved to Edessa, he lived as a hermit outside the city; from Edessa he also engaged in some long-distance travel, to Cappadocia, in order to visit St Basil, and to Egypt, in order to visit St Bishoi. On internal evidence, the Life cannot have been written earlier than the mid sixth century; this means that its author was working nearly two hundred years after Ephrem’s death, and what he has done is to ‘update’ St Ephrem to make him more relevant to contemporary sixth-century read*

Originally published in The Harp 22 (2007), 6–17.

11

12

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

ers. This is of course a legitimate thing to do, just as it is sometimes effective today to produce Shakespeare’s plays in modern dress; but of course this ‘updating’ needs to be taken into {8} mind if one wishes today to get back to the historical Ephrem who lived in the fourth century. Thus the visits to Basil and Bishoi can be shown to be unhistorical, and it so happens that it is possible to see exactly how the two stories came into existence. In the case of Basil the starting point is to be found in a couple of references in Basil’s own writings to an unnamed Syrian whose opinion on certain exegetical matters Basil valued. This anonymous Syrian was already identified as Ephrem by Severus (who died in 538); it is this identification that the author of the Life has followed, at the same time deducing that the two must have actually met. Only in recent years has the true identity of Basil’s ‘Syrian’ come to light: he is definitely Eusebius of Emesa (who originated from Edessa), an older contemporary of Ephrem. 1 The visit to Bishoi also had its origin in a similar sort of misunderstanding. 2 While these two visits of Ephrem are certainly not historical, they nevertheless do serve a symbolic purpose, in that they point to the fact that Ephrem shared much at a profound level with the Cappadocians on the one hand, and with the ideals of the Egyptian monastic movement on the other. It was the Life of St Ephrem which gave rise to the standard iconographical tradition, according to which the saint is portrayed in monastic habit. 3 As we shall see, there is also another tradition of how he should be portrayed in icons, and it is that one which is historically the more accurate. The second portrait of St Ephrem, equally misleading, is the one that is familiar from the liturgical tradition. As far as details of his biography {9} are concerned, the liturgical texts draw very largely on the sixth-century Life, adding a few further unhistorical details of their own. But what is more important is the misleading impression that the liturgical texts give of Ephrem as a poet: in the manuscript tradition and especially in the printed Mosul Fenqitho, almost all madrashe are attributed to Ephrem. A critical study of these madrashe indicate two important things: 4 in the first place, although quite a number of madrashe do contain material that is definitely genSee L. van Rompay, ‘L’informateur syrien de Basile de Césarée’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 58 (1992), pp. 245–51. 2 This was shown by H.J. Polotsky, ‘Ephraems Reise nach Aegypten’, Orientalia 2 (19331), pp. 269–74. 3 The anachronistic character of the Life’s portrayal of him as a monk, has been well brought out in a number of studies, notably S.H. Griffith, ‘Images of Ephrem. The Syrian Holy Man and his Church’, Traditio 45 (1989/90), pp. 7–33; and J. Amar, ‘Byzantine ascetic monachism and Greek bias in the Vita tradition of Ephrem the Syrian’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 58 (1992), pp. 123–56. 4 For details, see my ‘The transmission of Ephrem’s madrashe in the Syriac liturgical tradition’, Studia Patristica 33 (1997), pp. 490–505, and ‘St Ephrem in the eyes of later Syriac liturgical tradition’, Hugoye [www.syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye] 2:1 (1999) = chapters 21 and 22, below. 1

2. ST EPHREM AND HIS IMPORTANCE FOR TODAY

13

uine Ephrem, in no case, it seems, do they preserve any of his madrashe in their original, and complete, form. Instead, single verses, or groups of verses, have been excerpted from complete poems and then combined with other verses that are clearly later in date and are often of a different character. 5 Secondly, the great majority of madrashe under his name are clearly later than Ephrem in their entirety; 6 moreover, a good many of them are also of inferior literary quality. This being so, ‘Ephrem’, as presented in the liturgical tradition, emerges as poet of only mediocre quality, and one who has no real claim to being at the same time a theologian of any profundity. The third Ephrem, the genuine Ephrem, has lain hidden for over a thousand years, and it is only really in the last half century that he has been rediscovered, largely thanks to the recovery of his own writings, rather than writings about him. This real Ephrem was a deacon, and not a monk (in the later sense of the word); he was very probably himself a representative of the early Syriac form of the consecrated lifestyle, consisting of bnay qyama and ihidaye, the single-minded followers of Christ the ihida (Only-Begotten), who {10} lived within the Christian community, and not apart from it. 7 This third Ephrem is also someone who emerges from his genuine writings as a poet and theologian of real stature. It is interesting that the earliest known icon of St Ephrem, incorporated into a larger icon portraying (among other things) the mandylion of Edessa, correctly portrays Ephrem as a deacon, and not as a monk (as he normally appears in the iconographical tradition): this is to be found on an icon in St Catherine’s Monastery, Sinai, 8 which almost certainly dates from not long after the transfer of the mandylion from Edessa to Constantinople in 944.

WHY HAS THE TRUE ST EPHREM BEEN FORGOTTEN FOR SO LONG?

One might well ask ‘How is possible that this third and real St Ephrem remained hidden for so long?’ The answer is linked to the fate of much early Syriac literature, a fate brought about by two separate factors. In the first place, it is observable that, in the case of many early Syriac writings (and Syriac translations from Greek), these writings ceased to be copied in their complete form after about the eighth or ninth

For a particularly dramatic example one might take a madrasha for the First Sunday after Pentecost in the Mosul Fenqitho VI, pp. 2678: incorporated among much later stanzas one will find H. de Nativitate 3:21, de Fide 46:12, 40:2–3, and de Ecclesia 21:5 and 4 (sometimes with the wording altered)! 6 Likewise, the various poems which claim to be autobiographical, are almost certainly not by Ephrem himself. 7 For the distinctive Syriac proto-monasticism of Ephrem’s time, see S.H. Griffith, ‘‘Singles’ in God’s service: thoughts on the Ihidaye from the works of Aphrahat and Ephraem the Syrian’, The Harp 4 (1991), pp. 145–59, and ‘Asceticism in the Church of Syria’, in V.L. Wimbush and R. Valantasis (eds), Asceticism (New York, 1995), pp. 220–48; also chapter 8 of my The Luminous Eye: the Spiritual World Vision of St Ephrem (Rome, 1985; Kalamazoo, 1992). 8 Illustrated, for example, in The Hidden Pearl (ed. S.P. Brock, with D.G.K. Taylor; Rome, 2001), II, p. 49. 5

14

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

century; after that time they were either just excerpted (as happened to Ephrem’s madrashe in the medieval liturgical tradition), or anthologized. As a consequence of this change in scribal habits, it is only in very early manuscripts that the complete texts of these early writers survive. As far as Ephrem is concerned, it is only in a small number of sixth-century manuscripts (some of which are precisely dated, the earliest being from AD 519) that the complete texts of his madrashe survive (and in some cases there are gaps, due to damage or the loss of a folio here and there). {11} It so happens that manuscripts dating from the fifth to eighth century are normally only preserved in Egypt, thanks to that country’s dry climate; from elsewhere in West Asia it is very rare to have Syriac manuscripts preserved that are earlier than about the eleventh or twelfth century. Fortunately there are two monasteries in Egypt which happen to have, or to have once had, large collections of Syriac manuscripts: St Catherine’s Monastery, on Mount Sinai, and the ‘Syrian’ Monastery in the Desert of Sketis, between Cairo and Alexandria. The latter is especially important for the transmission of early Syriac texts, thanks to the work of collecting old manuscripts which the early tenth-century abbot, Moses of Nisibis, undertook during the years he had to spend in Baghdad sorting out the tax affairs of the Egyptian monasteries. It was almost certainly thanks to him that we owe the survival of all the extant sixth-century manuscripts of Ephrem’s poems. 9 Once in Deir alSurian, these early manuscripts of the madrashe remained uncopied, and it was only in the eighteenth century, some hundred years after the supply of Syrian Orthodox monks had dried up and the monastery had become entirely Coptic Orthodox, that a considerable number of these manuscripts were transported to Rome, to be housed in the Vatican Library. It was only then that Maronite scholars working in Rome made available in print the texts of those madrashe by Ephrem that were to be found in the manuscripts brought to Rome. In the eighteenth century, however, European Syriac scholarship was not sufficiently advanced to pay much attention to these newly published texts – and in any case the three volumes of Syriac texts under Ephrem’s name also included a considerable amount that was not by Ephrem. 10 The situation changed in the mid nineteenth century, after the acquisition of a great many further Syriac manuscripts from Deir el-Surian {12} by the British Museum (now housed in the British Library). This gave rise to the publication of complete madrashe by Ephrem from early manuscripts in the British Museum by Overbeck, Bickell, Lamy and others. But it was not until after the middle of the twentieth century that good editions of all the surviving madrashe collections began to be published and made widely available. Over the course of just ten years (1955–1964) For the importance of Moses’ role in the transmission of early Syriac literature, see further my ‘Without Mushe of Nisibis where would we be? Some reflections on the transmission of Syriac literature’, Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 56 (2004), pp. 15–24. 10 A guide to the contents of these volumes can be found in K. den Biesen, Bibliography of Ephrem the Syrian (Giove in Umbria, 2002), pp. 361–7, and in my ‘A brief guide to the main editions and translations of the works of St Ephrem’, The Harp 3:1/2 (1990), pp. 7–29 (an updated version of this is chapter 24, below). 9

2. ST EPHREM AND HIS IMPORTANCE FOR TODAY

15

Dom Edmund Beck OSB produced what immediately became the standard editions of the madrashe (along with various memre and other works attributed to Ephrem, though often belonging to some later, but unknown, author; his last volume of texts attributed to Ephrem appeared in 1979). 11 Thus it is only within the lifetime of many of us that the genuine Ephrem has been revealed once again. Although the existence of these complete madrashe of his is now well known to scholars, nevertheless outside academic circles, and especially in the Churches of Syriac tradition, the real St Ephrem still remains largely unknown. It is thus a matter of great importance that translations should be made, not only in the main European languages, but also in those of Western Asia and India: only in this way will the true Ephrem be rediscovered by the Churches to whose tradition he belongs.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TRUE ST EPHREM

Having separated out and distinguished the genuine St Ephrem from the other two misleading pictures of St Ephrem, we are now in a position to turn to our main question, Why is St Ephrem – whom Pope Benedict XV, in 1920, had already proclaimed a Doctor of the Universal Church – of particular importance for today? For our present purpose here, three particular reasons may be singled out; others could certainly also be adduced. (1) Ephrem offers us a different way of approaching theology. Today the universal expectation is that a theologian will write in prose. Ephrem, however, represents a forgotten tradition of using poetry as a vehicle for theology. Whereas religious poetry, often of a {13} very high quality, is to be found in all the Christian traditions, Ephrem goes much further, for hidden behind his poetic corpus is a coherent and profoundly thought out theological understanding of the relationship between Creator and creation, between human beings and the rest of creation, and of the whole pattern of salvation. Ephrem’s approach is the very opposite of any analytical approach to theology; he abhors the very idea of definitions, since these seek to put boundaries (fines) around the Boundless. Instead, his tools are paradoxes, images, and (above all) raze, the ‘mysteries’ or symbols that provide the interconnections between the divine world and everyone and everything within creation, thus endowing everything with meaning. 12 As has been pointed out by Robert Murray, Tanios Bou Mansour, 13 Kees den Biesen, 14 and others, parallels to Ephrem’s approach are to be found in the work of Even in poems transmitted in sixth-century manuscripts there may be some interpolations; on this matter see A.N. Palmer, ‘Akrostich poems: restoring Ephrem’s madroshe’, The Harp 15 (2002), pp. 275–87. 12 Robert Murray’s article ‘The theory of symbolism in St Ephrem’s theology’, Parole de l’Orient 6/7 (1975/6), pp. 1–20, remains the best succinct introduction. 13 In his important study La pensée symbolique de saint Ephrem le syrien (Kaslik, 1988). 14 Simple and Bold. Ephrem’s Art of Symbolic Thought (Piscataway NJ, 2006). 11

16

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

certain modern thinkers, notably Paul Ricoeur and Hans-Georg Gadamer. 15 It is good that some Indian scholars have begun to consider him in the light of Indian philosophical and religious tradition, as well. 16 (2) Ephrem can serve as a spiritual teacher who is of great relevance today. This takes on two separate aspects. Firstly, Ephrem offers us a wonderfully holistic way of looking at the world from a spiritual perspective: there are underlying interconnections {14} everywhere, with the consequence that there is an interdependence between everyone and everything. Ephrem lays great emphasis on the right use of the gift to human beings of free will: this applies not only in the interrelationships between human beings, but also to the relationship between human beings and the natural world, that is, the rest of creation. This is of course of great relevance in the context of the ecological crisis that faces the whole world today. For Ephrem, the dominion over the rest of creation, granted in Gen. 1:28, involves responsibility: the right use of free will is imperative, seeing that the wrong use, or abuse, of one part of creation can have unexpected effects in a completely different area – something that is currently being experienced with the melting of Arctic ice caps and of permafrost in Siberia. St Ephrem would make an excellent patron saint for all ecologists who have an awareness of the spiritual dimensions of the ecological crisis. 17 The second area where Ephrem can serve as a spiritual guide concerns his teaching about how the biblical text should be read and understood. It is primarily through ‘the Book’ that God reveals himself to humanity, 18 allowing himself to be ‘clothed in human language’, prior to his ‘putting on the human body’ at the incarnation. To take these ‘borrowed terms’ literally is to abuse God’s means of selfrevelation to humanity, who would otherwise not be able to have any knowledge of God. Ephrem’s firm rejection of any literalist or fundamentalist reading of the Bible is especially important at a time when fundamentalist approaches to sacred texts in Although Charles Bernard never mentions Ephrem in his Théologie symbolique (Paris, 1978), Ephrem’s approach has much in common with his. 16 G. Karukaparambil, ‘The spiritual world view of St Ephrem compared to Vedanta’, in R. Lavenant (ed.), Symposium Syriacum VII (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 256; 1998), pp. 243–8; reprinted in G. Karukaparambil (ed.), Kynanaya Pearl [Festschrift for Archbishop Kuriakose Kunnachery] (Kottayam, 2005), pp. 291–9, along with his ‘Concept of God in St Ephrem and in Rig Veda’, pp. 312–25; John Vattanky, ‘Indian Oriental Churches and the development of Indian theology, The Harp 19 (2006), pp. 317–24, and ‘Understanding Christian eschatology against the background of Ephrem and Sankara’, The Harp 27 (2011), 369– 80. 17 On this aspect see my The Luminous Eye, pp. 164–8, and ‘Humanity and the natural world in the Syriac tradition’, Sobornost/Eastern Churches Review 12 (1990), pp. 131–42; R. Murray, ‘The Ephremic tradition and the theology of the environment’, Hugoye 2:1 (1999); and J. Naduvilezham, ‘The eco-spiritual vision of St Ephrem’, Christian Orient 24 (2003), pp. 134–9. 18 For Ephrem the other ‘witness’ to God is Nature (kyana): innumerable raze, or pointers to the divine Reality, are hidden within both ‘the Book’ and the natural world, but in order to perceive these, what is required is the exercise of the purified interior eye of faith. 15

2. ST EPHREM AND HIS IMPORTANCE FOR TODAY

17

different religions are proving so harmful and dangerous in many different parts of the world. His own {15} approach to reading the biblical text is both profound and creative. An essential point to remember about his approach is that Scripture is multivalent, not univalent: Ephrem compares it to a never ending fountain, from which one can drink again and again, each time meeting a different need. At the same time, in order to benefit from the biblical text – and not to abuse it – Ephrem stresses that the reader needs to be open to the Spirit, who will then speak to that person through the text, which is itself inspired by the same Spirit. Instead of the reader dominating the text by approaching it with preconceived ideas, or with misconceptions, the reader needs to empty him/herself in order to let the biblical text speak in its own right and thus interact with the reader. The right relationship between text and reader is essential, otherwise things will go wrong. 19 (3) The last of the three aspects of St Ephrem’s writings which one might select as being of particular relevance in the modern world concerns his attitude to women. On the whole the early Church Fathers do not pay much attention to women, and when they do, their attitude is quite often negative. In this respect St Ephrem is quite exceptional: not only did he institute women’s choirs (as we learn from Jacob of Serugh’s verse panegyric) 20 but he also composed a number of his madrashe specifically in the voice of women. 21 {16} Furthermore, in both his prose and poetry Ephrem shows an exceptional sympathy for biblical women, going out of his way to speak about them, where possible, in a positive light; this applies even to some women who are portrayed in the Bible in a solely negative light, such as Potiphar’s wife: in his Commentary on Genesis Ephrem goes on to tell how she repented, relating with great delicacy the stages in her repentance. 22 Of course there is nothing about this in the biblical text itself, but this is a theme that was in due course taken up in the Qur’an (Surah 12:51) and especially in Sufi literature (where she is given the name Zuleika). It is also interesting to find that quite a number of Ephrem’s positive passing remarks on biblical For some of the relevant texts in Ephrem, see my The Luminous Eye, pp. 46–51, 161– 4, and ‘St Ephrem on reading Scripture’, forthcoming in The Downside Review (2007) and the expanded second edition of my Studies in Syriac Spirituality (ed. T. Kollamparampil; Bangalore, 2008). 20 Edited, with English translation, by J. Amar in Patrologia Orientalis 47 (1995); see especially couplets 96–113. 21 In particular, several of the madrashe on the Nativity are written in the voice of Mary; see especially S.A. Harvey, ‘On Mary’s voice: gendered words in the Syriac Marian tradition’, in D.B. Martin and P. Cox Miller (eds), The Cultural Turn in Late Ancient Studies: Gender, Asceticism and Historiography (Durham NC, 2005), pp. 63–86. For Ephrem’s use of feminine imagery, see K. McVey,’Ephrem the Syrian’s use of female metaphors to describe the Deity’, Journal of Ancient Christianity 5 (2001), pp. 261–88. 22 See my ‘St Ephrem on women in the Old Testament’, in Patrimoine Syriaque: Actes du Colloque XI, Saint Ephrem un poète pour notre temps (held in Aleppo, May 2006), pp. 35–44 = chapter 13, below. 19

18

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

women were subsequently picked up and developed in later Syriac literature, notably by Jacob of Serugh 23 and by some of the anonymous poets who probably belong to the fifth or sixth century. 24 {17} For anyone who is only familiar with what has, over the centuries, become the traditional portrait of St Ephrem, with all its misleading features, the encounter with the real St Ephrem should lead to the exciting experience of the discovery of a way of perceiving both the created world (kyana) and the biblical text (ktaba) from a new perspective, one which is capable of lending meaning to everything by indicating the interconnections and interdependence between every thing and everyone within creation, and the relationship between this world and the heavenly world of divine reality (shrara, literally ‘truth’).

A good example is to be found in his brief comments on Tamar (Gen. 38), which are taken up by Jacob of Serugh in a particularly beautiful verse homily (text and English translation in Le Muséon 115 (2003), pp. 279–315. Whether or not the memra on the Sinful Woman (ed. Beck, Sermones II.iv) goes back in its present form to Ephrem himself, the theme was to prove a particularly popular one with Syriac writers: see especially S.A. Harvey, ‘Why the perfume mattered: The Sinful Woman in Syriac exegetical tradition’, in P.M. Blowers and others (eds), In Dominico Eloquio. In Lordly Eloquence. Essays in Patristic Exegesis in Honor of R.L. Wilken (Grand Rapids, 2002), pp. 69–89, and her ‘Spoken words, voiced silence: biblical women in Syriac tradition’, Journal of Early Christian Studies 9 (2001), pp. 105–31. An English translation of Jacob of Serugh’s memra on her is provided by S. Johnson in Sobornost/Eastern Churches Review 24 (2002), pp. 56–88. 24 Thus several of the anonymous poems on Genesis 22 take as their starting point Ephrem’s passing remark about Sarah in his Commentary on Genesis XX: see especially the two anonymous memre published, with English translation, in Le Muséon 99 (1986), pp. 61–129. 23

3

THE MANY FACES OF ST EPHREM St Ephrem is by far the best known Syriac author and saint. He was proclaimed a Doctor of the universal Church in 1920, and he is widely recognised as one of the finest poets of the Christian tradition. Writings attributed to him exist in many different languages, and indeed the corpus of 270 texts under his name in Greek exceeds the size of that of any other Greek Father apart from St John Chrysostom. 1 Likewise, writings about him, in both ancient and modern languages, present us with many different portraits, or faces, of Ephrem – so how can we get back to the genuine face of Ephrem? An essential starting point is to examine the different sources of information about Ephrem that we have, and to ask how reliable they are. These sources can be divided into three main categories: (1) writings which claim to be by him; (2) writings about him; and (3) the ways in which he is portrayed in icons and manuscripts. Let us take a look at each of these in turn: (1) Writings which claim to be by him. These fall into three sub-categories: writings which are likely to be genuine, those whose authenticity is uncertain, and those which are certainly not by Ephrem. It will be helpful to consider each of these in reverse order: (a) writings which cannot possibly be by Ephrem, even though they are transmitted under his name. In Syriac this applies above all to a considerable number of mimre which are written ‘in the metre of St Ephrem’, and then subsequently came to be attributed to him. On a whole number of grounds, stylistic, choice of vocabulary, use of later sources, and so on, these poems cannot possibly be by Ephrem. But above all, this category applies to a great many of the texts under Ephrem’s name in Greek, many of which were clearly composed in Greek, and do not go back to Syriac at all. And even in the case of those which do have a Syriac original, the Syriac is

In M. Geerard’s Clavis Patrum Graecorum [CPG] II (Turnhout, 1974), the entry for ‘Ephrem Graecus’, on pp. 366–468, comes second in length to that for John Chrysostom (pp. 491–672). 1

19

20

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

not always genuinely by Ephrem. 2 Obviously, writings under this heading are not going to be able to tell us anything at all about the real Ephrem; the most they can do is to indicate what medieval readers considered to be by Ephrem. (b) writings which are of uncertain authenticity. This applies to a certain number of works, concerning which, in our present state of knowledge, we cannot be certain whether or not they are by Ephrem himself. This being so, it is best, at least for the present, not to use these as witnesses who might provide us with a true face of Ephrem. This category includes a number of madroshe preserved in medieval liturgical manuscripts, to which I shall come back shortly. (c) writings which are very likely to be genuinely by Ephrem. 3 Fortunately, a considerable number of very early Syriac manuscripts with writings by Ephrem survive; several of these manuscripts are precisely dated, all to dates in the first half of the sixth century. Given their age, the writings in these ancient manuscripts have the best likelihood of being genuinely by Ephrem, and it is upon them that the modern critical edition of his poetry by Edmund Beck, in the CSCO, is based. Although the early date of the manuscripts is not necessarily an absolute guarantee of genuineness, a comparison of the poems in these manuscripts with those under Ephrem’s name in the medieval liturgical tradition is very revealing: the following points, in particular emerge: - The medieval liturgical manuscripts never transmit any of the madroshe in their complete form; instead, they make a selection of different verses. 4 - In the process of selection two different things can happen: genuine verses may be interspersed with other verses which are not by Ephrem; this can at times give a completely new emphasis to the newly constructed poem as a whole. And secondly, verses from completely different madroshe by Ephrem may be combined together; once again, this will often give a new slant to the poem. Since this procedure of ‘rewriting’ Ephrem can be observed in the case of poems which are preserved in the very early manuscripts, it makes one very hesitant about using the evidence of the medieval liturgical madroshe for reconstructing poems by Ephrem which we know, on other grounds, to have been lost: while it is certainly possible that the medieval liturgical manuscripts may preserve genuine individual stanzas of lost poems, it is not at all likely that we would ever be able to recover complete genuine poems from this source. (2) Writings about him. These fall into two sub-categories: (a) Texts which claim to be autobiographical, the most famous of which is the Testament of Ephrem.

Thus CPG 4025, on the Passion of Christ, attributed to Ephrem in both Greek and Latin, is transmitted in Syriac under the name of John Chrysostom! 3 See my ‘A brief guide to the main editions and translations of the works of St Ephrem’, chapter 24, below. 4 For the following, see my ‘The transmission of Ephrem’s madrashe in the Syriac liturgical tradition’, Studia Patristica 33 (1997), pp. 490–505 = chapter 21, below. 2

3. THE MANY FACES OF ST EPHREM

21

(b) Biographical sources, of which the most influential is the Life of St Ephrem, written (at the earliest) in the sixth century. For reasons of space, I shall just deal here with the Testament and the Life of St Ephrem, since these are the best known and the most influential. 5 The manuscripts of the Testament present considerable differences between each other, and two whole episodes, concerning Moses and the magicians, and that with the noble lady of Edessa named Lamprotate, are absent from one of the oldest manuscripts. A further section (lines 843–59) is clearly based on the addition in the Syriac translation of the section on Ephrem in Palladius’ Lausiac History – an addition which in fact has its origin in a Greek saying entirely unrelated to Ephrem. 6 Though it is possible that just a core of the Testament might go back to Ephrem himself, even this is not all that likely. It is the Life, however, which has proved to be the source that has most influenced the way in which later generations have pictured Ephrem. On internal grounds, the Syriac Life of Ephrem 7 cannot have been written before the middle of the sixth century. 8 This means that it was put together at least 180 years after the death of St Ephrem. Thus it is as if someone today wrote a biography of a famous person who lived at the end of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth century. Two things would govern the reliability of such a biography: firstly, the quality of the sources used; and secondly, the motives of the biographer. In the case of the Life of Ephrem we can identify quite a number of the sources employed by the sixth-century author, and for the most part these are Greek (though sometimes in Syriac translation), and none of these sources was written less than 50 years after Ephrem’s death. In certain cases we can see clearly how the compiler of the Life worked. As is well known, the Life portrays Ephrem as making two long journeys, one to Caesarea in Cappadocia to visit St Basil, and the other to Egypt, to visit St Bishoi. In both cases, the compiler of the Life has identified a ‘Syrian’, who was left nameless in his sources, as St Ephrem. In the case of the nameless ‘Syrian’ whom Basil himself says he consulted, the man in question can now be identified: he is Eusebius of Emesa, and not Ephrem. 9 This being so, the visit to see For the portrait of Ephrem in liturgical texts, see my ‘St Ephrem in the eyes of later Syriac liturgical tradition’, in Hugoye [http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye] 1:2 (1999) = chapter 22, below. 6 Sayings of the Desert Fathers, in Patrologia Graeca 165, col. 168. 7 The text is conveniently reprinted in Assad Sauma, Efrem Syriern (306–373). Hans liv och skrifter (Stockholm, 2005), pp. 116–217 (followed by a critique of its contents, pp. 218– 39). A detailed study, giving the text of the various recensions, is to be found in J. Amar, The Syriac Vita Tradition of Ephrem the Syrian (Dissertation, Catholic University of America, 1988). 8 The Life speaks of the river Daisan going around the city of Edessa, and not through it (as was the case in Ephrem’s time): the river was only diverted around the city in the sixth century, after a disastrous flood in 525. 9 See L. van Rompay, ‘L’informateur syrien de Basile de Césarée’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 58 (1992), pp. 245–51. 5

22

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

St Basil is not at all likely to be historical; and the same can be shown in the case of the visit to Egypt. This brings one to the question of the motives lying behind the work of Ephrem’s sixth-century biographer. Here, one thing seems to be fairly clear: the biographer wishes to make Ephrem relevant to the contemporary concerns and expectations of his sixth-century readers; in other words, he is presenting Ephrem, as it were, ‘in modern dress’, that is, as a sixth-century, rather than a fourth-century saint. 10 One very prominent consequence of this concerns the way in which the author presents Ephrem as a monk and indeed as a hermit living in a cave outside Edessa. 11 By the sixth century the Egyptian style of monasticism, with whose heirs we are familiar today, had long taken root in Syria/Mesopotamia. But sixth-century monasticism was very different from the proto-monasticism that was around in Ephrem’s day in Mesopotamia. 12 Whereas the sixth-century monastic ideal was essentially oriented to the desert, and separation from the world, the protomonasticism to which Ephrem almost certainly belonged, that of the famous bnay and bnoth qyomo, was closely associated with the Christian community living in the towns and village. It is highly significant that one of our earliest sources, St Jerome, writing in 392, just under 20 years after Ephrem’s death in 373, states that Ephrem was a ‘deacon’, and the Greek author Palladius, writes that at the end of his life Ephrem was specifically involved in the very diaconal service of ensuring that the poor did not suffer from famine after a failed harvest. 13 We thus have a marked contrast between Ephrem the deacon, according to the earlier sources, and Ephrem the monk and hermit, according to the later sources, including the sixth-century biography. It is precisely the same contrast that we find in the iconographical tradition, to which I now turn. (3) The iconographical tradition, the way he is portrayed in manuscripts and on icons. In the case of ancient writers we can never hope to have any real idea of what they physically looked like. Instead, over the course of time, an iconographical tradiIt is in fact misguided to treat the Life of Ephrem as if it was intended to serve as a historical source: the compiler was more interested in indicating Ephrem’s harmony, on a spiritual level, with his contemporaries living outside the Syriac world, using St Basil and St Bishoi as symbolic representatives of the great Cappadocian theologians and of the Egyptian monastic tradition. 11 See J. Amar, ‘Byzantine ascetic monachism and Greek bias in the Vita tradition of Ephrem the Syrian’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 58 (1992), pp. 123–56. 12 For the Syriac proto-monastic tradition, see S.H. Griffith, ‘Asceticism in the Church of Syria. The hermeneutics of early Syriac monasticism’, in V.L. Wimbush and R. Valantasis (eds), Asceticism (New York, 1995), pp. 220–48, and chapter 8, ‘The ascetic ideal: Saint Ephrem and proto-monasticism’, in my The Luminous Eye: the Spiritual World Vision of St Ephrem (Kalamazoo, 1992), pp. 131–41. 13 Jerome, On Famous Men, 115; Palladius, Lausiac History, ch. 40. Both passages are translated in the introduction to my St Ephrem the Syrian, Hymns on Paradise (Crestwood NY, 1990), pp. 12–15. 10

3. THE MANY FACES OF ST EPHREM

23

tion, or traditions, of portrayal grew up, and this is all that we have today. Interestingly enough, in the iconographical tradition we have exactly the same dichotomy that we find in the literary tradition: while for the most part Ephrem is portrayed as a monk, nevertheless sometimes he is depicted as a deacon. This applies both to the medieval, and to the modern, iconographical tradition. One of the earliest portraits of Ephrem is to be found in a huge eleventh-century manuscript of mimre in the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate, 14 where Ephrem is portrayed in monastic habit, standing side by side with Jacob of Serugh. An example of the rival iconographical tradition, portraying Ephrem as a deacon, is to be seen in an icon, also of the eleventh century, at the Monastery of St Catherine, Sinai. 15 Here St Ephrem is standing alongside St Basil – a combination which of course goes back to the sixth-century biography. It is interesting that if one turns to modern portrayals of St Ephrem, whether as icons or in other forms, examples of both iconographical traditions can still be found. Where St Ephrem is portrayed as a monk, we have the sixth-century portrait of the saint, whereas where St Ephrem is portrayed as a deacon, we are much closer to what is likely to have been the real St Ephrem. If the sixth-century Life of St Ephrem, along with other witnesses to the later biographical tradition, is not going to be very helpful in revealing to us the face of the real Ephrem, what then are we left with? A short answer, expressed in the sort of paradox that Ephrem delighted in, is that, on the one hand we are not left with very much, but on the other hand, we are left with a great deal. As with St Ephrem’s paradoxes, this paradox too needs some unpacking. If we are wanting to learn about the outward circumstances of Ephrem’s life, we have to admit that we really know very little. From a couple of chance remarks in poems which are certainly genuine, 16 Ephrem seems to have been born of Christian parents – in contrast to the more newsworthy and eye-catching account in the sixthcentury Life, where his father is a pagan priest who chucks his son out of the house for consorting with Christians. Most of his life (at least well into middle age) was spent in Nisibis, almost certainly as a deacon and very likely also as a bar qyama, someone who had undertaken certain ascetic vows, serving under a series of bishops whom he commemorates in the Carmina Nisibena. In view of Ephrem’s sympathetic portrayal of biblical women in his writings, it seems likely that Jacob of Serugh’s statement 17 that he instituted choirs for women, is correct. If Ephrem really was born in 306 (as our centenary assumes, but which is completely uncertain), he was about 57 when he became a refugee in 363, when Nisibis was handed over to the Persians in the peace treaty after the death of the emperor Julian. Ending up in Edessa, it was there that he spent the last ten years of his life. Whereas the year of

Ms 12/15, illustrated in J. Leroy, Les manuscrits syriaques à peintures (Paris, 1964), II, plate 61.1. 15 Illustrated, for example, in S. Brock and D.G.K. Taylor (eds), The Hidden Pearl (Rome, 2001), II, p. 49. 16 Hymns against Heresies 26:10 and on Virginity 37:10. 17 In his mimro on Ephrem, ed. J. Amar, in Patrologia Orientalis 47 (1995). 14

24

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

his birth is totally unknown, the date of his death in 373, was almost certainly 9th June. 18 So much for the outward circumstances of his Life. It is only when we turn to those of his writings which are likely to be genuine that we can start to experience something of the profundity and stature of the real Ephrem. For it is from these writings, and above all from his poetry, that Ephrem’s true face can be perceived. Not that Ephrem will reveal his true face to just a cursory reading of a few of his poems: he challenges the reader to read on and so become familiar with his creative vision of the world, and of the intricate interrelationships between everything within creation, and between the created world and its Creator. Let me conclude by pointing out an ironic fact of history: Ephrem’s poems ceased to be copied in full after about the eighth or ninth century, and so they only survive complete today in very early manuscripts. These were only preserved thanks to the dry Egyptian climate and the tenth-century bibliophile and collector of manuscripts, the abbot Moses who, like Ephrem, was also from Nisibis. 19 These early manuscripts of Ephrem lay, it seems, forgotten in the library of Deir al-Surian, between Cairo and Alexandria, until the eighteenth century, when the Vatican Library acquired some of them, leaving others for the British Museum to purchase a hundred or so years later. Although some of the texts in the Vatican Library were published in the eighteenth century, these only had a small circulation. Thus it has only been in the last fifty or so years – in our lifetime – that good editions of Ephrem’s genuine writings have been made. 20 At present these are only available in editions using the unvocalized estrangelo script, but one of the desiderata for the future is to have editions of them in vocalized serto script, 21 thus making them much more accessible, allowing a much wider readership to embark on the voyage of discovering the true face of this great poet and saint whom we are celebrating.

This is the date given in the Chronicle of Edessa (section 31). For the importance of Moses collection, see my ‘Without Mushe of Nisibis, where would we be? Some reflections on the transmission of Syriac literature’, Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 46 (2004), pp. 15–24. 20 For the most part, in the Syriac series of the Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium (CSCO); see note 3. 21 A beginning was made by J.Y. Khoury, Hymnes sur la Nativité. Texte syriaque [vocalized], traduction arabe et présentation (Oeuvres de saint Ephrem 1; Kaslik, 1994). A further series is planned by the Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches Orientales (CERO; Antelias). The St Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute (SEERI), in Kottayam, plans to publish a vocalized text of the Hymns on the Fast, with English translation. A selection of twenty poems in vocalized serto, with English translations, entitled Ephrem the Syrian. Select Poems, ed. S. Brock and G. Kiraz, (Provo, Utah, 2006). 18 19

4

IN SEARCH OF ST EPHREM * St Ephrem, the 17th centenary of whose birth we are celebrating, is a name with which we are all extremely familiar, but what do we really know about him? And, more importantly, why is he someone whom we should not simply commemorate, but also someone to whose wisdom and insight we today in the twenty-first century also need to listen and pay attention? These are the two questions which I should like to explore here. On the surface, we appear to be very well informed about Ephrem’s life, with a lot of evidence available: there is a fairly detailed biography and there are also some supposedly autobiographical poems in which the poet speaks directly about himself. Besides these sources, we also have a very large body of writings which are transmitted under his name. Furthermore, we also have an iconographical tradition which portrays him. All these sources indeed combine to provide the standard picture of St Ephrem with which most people are familiar today, but one needs to stand back and ask some questions, ‘Is the picture of St Ephrem which we get from these sources a true one? Are these sources in fact reliable from a historical point of view? What are their credentials?’. Only when we have found some answers to these questions can we go on to attempt to build up a more reliable portrait of the man. First, then, we need to do some detective work, which involves taking a critical look at the sources that we have for the life of St Ephrem, and among these the most important would, on the surface, seem to be the biography, which comes down to us both in Syriac and in Greek. 1 What does this biography tell us? In outline it is as follows:

Originally published in Saint Éphrem. Un poète pour notre temps (Patrimoine syriaque, Actes du Colloque XI; CERO, Antélias, 2007), pp. 11–25 and republished in Khristianskij Vostok 6 (XII) (2013), 13–77. 1 Two different manuscripts of the Syriac have been published: Vatican syr. 117 in P. Benedictus and J.E. Assemani, Sancti Patris nostri Ephraem Syri Opera Omnia III (Rome, 1743), pp. xxi–lxiii; and Paris syr. 235 in P. Bedjan, Acta Martyrum et Sanctorum III (Paris/Leipzig, 1892), pp. 621–65. There is an important study by J. Amar, The Syriac Vita Tradition of Ephrem the Syrian (unpublished dissertation, Catholic University of America, Washington DC, 1988); Amar also uses British Library Or. 9384. ∗

25

26

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

Ephrem was born to pagan parents; as a young man, he was thrown out of the house by his father, a pagan priest, for talking to a Christian. He then met Jacob, bishop Nisibis, and in due course accompanied him to the Council of Nicaea. Later, when the Persian king besieged Nisibis, Ephrem’s prayers effected a miraculous cloud of mosquitos which attacked the enemy’s elephants and horses, causing them to retreat. When the emperor Jovian made peace with the Persians, Ephrem, still a catechumen, had to leave Nisibis along with other Christians. Before he comes to Edessa, he receives baptism at the age of eighteen. In Edessa he first works in the public baths, but on the advice of a monk whom he happens to meet, he joins the monks {14} and hermits living on the mountainside to the west of Edessa. There he wrote many books, and acquired disciples. Hearing the fame of St Basil he sets out to visit him, but goes to Egypt on the way (!); there he meets St Bishoi. He then travels to Caesarea to meet St Basil, who ordains him deacon. Back in Edessa he combats many heresies, and to do so he takes up Bardaisan’s practice of propagating doctrine through sung poetry. When St Basil wanted to make Ephrem a bishop, Ephrem pretends to be mad, and so avoids this. His last years fell in the reign of the pro-Arian emperor Valens; the people of Edessa resisted the emperor’s religious policy, and Ephrem wrote a poem in praise of their true faith. St Basil is said to have died while Ephrem was still alive; Ephrem’s own death occurred shortly after a famine in Edessa, during which he had rebuked the rich for hoarding grain. Interspersed into the account of his life are various miracles and visions (to one of the visions we shall come back briefly, later on). The Syriac biography is transmitted to us in at least five different manuscripts, 2 each with slightly different contents, and sometimes with a different ordering of events, although the main outlines of the story remain the same. 3 From a historical point of view, two glaring anachronisms stand out at once: first, St Basil is known to have died several years after Ephrem’s death, and not before it. The second is the statement (in Ch.9) that Ephrem, aged either 18 or 28 (the manuscripts differ over this), was baptised after he had left Nisibis. Since Nisibis was handed over to the Persian in the peace treaty of 363, this makes it hard to see how Ephrem could have served under St Jacob of Nisibis, who died in 338 before he might even have been born (let alone accompany Jacob to the Council of Nicaea in 325!); it would also be very embarrassing for our present celebration if the information in the biography were true, for it would place Ephrem’s birth in either 335 or 345, and not circa 306, which would mean that we should have waited for another thirty or forty years in order to celebrate the 17th centenary of his birth! Beyond those mentioned in note 1, there is Damascus Patr. 12/17, St Petersburg (N.V. Pigulevskaya, Catalogue no. LI), and Sinai Syriac (New Finds) Fragment 53 (the oldest witness, 10th cent.). For the Armenian and Georgian translations of the Life, see chapter 6, below. 3 A preface found only in British Library Or. 9384 (of AD 1892) claims that the author got his information from a disciple of Ephrem; since the biography cannot have been written before the sixth century (see below), this claim can be ignored. 2

4. IN SEARCH OF ST EPHREM

27

It is, however, a third anachronism in the biography which provides us with the date after which the biography must have been written. At one point in the biography (Ch. 11) mention is made in passing of the river Daisan, and how it flowed around the city of Edessa. It is known, however, that in Ephrem’s day the Daisan flowed through the middle of the city, and it was only after severe floods in 525 that the river’s course was diverted around the edge of the city. 4 This means that the author of the biography must have been writing at some time after the diverting of the river; accordingly, it is certain that the author must have been writing in the early sixth century, thus at least some 150 years after St Ephrem’s death in 373. In fact it does not take long to discover that the Syriac biography is built up out of a {15} number of different sources, many of which can be dated well into the fifth century, and some are probably even later. 5 In view of all this, it is clear that we need to treat the information in the biography with great circumspection, from a historical point of view. There is of course the possibility that it may, here and there, have preserved old and reliable material, but this would appear to be fairly minimal. There is one source that it is worth looking at here: this concerns the visit to St Basil in Cappadocia. The encounter between these two great fourth-century saints occupies several chapters in the biography. The episode is a particularly interesting one, since it is possible to see how the story has come about and how it has grown over time. Chapter 27 of the biography tells how Basil was expounding the text of the opening chapter of Genesis, concerning the six days of Creation. Verse 2 of this chapter has posed a problem both to ancient translators and to modern ones: is the ruah elohim, which hovers over the primordial waters, to be translated ‘spirit of God’, or ‘wind of God’. The biography states that St Basil opted for the former, identifying the ‘spirit’ with the Holy Spirit, telling his congregation ‘I learned this from a Syrian’ – who is then identified as St Ephrem. This in fact raises a problem, since it is clear from St Ephrem’s own writings that he took a different view, specifically stating that the ‘spirit’ of the second verse of Genesis was not to be identified as the Holy Spirit. What the biographer says about St Basil’s interpretation and its source being ‘a Syrian’, however, is perfectly correct, for in fact the whole passage turns out to be closely based on the Syriac translation of Basil’s Greek Commentary on the Six Days of Creation. Basil’s Commentary, however, does not go on to say who the ‘Syrian’ was. The identity of Basil’s informant was thus left open for speculation, both among writers of Late Antiquity and among modern scholars. The identification of the Syrian with St Ephrem, found in the Syriac biography of Ephrem, was in fact For this, see J. B. Segal, Edessa ‘the Blessed City’ (Oxford, 1970), pp. 187–8. See especially B. Outtier, ‘S.Ephrem d’après ses biographies et ses oeuvres’, Parole de l’Orient 4 (1973), pp. 11–33; also my ‘St Ephrem in the eyes of later liturgical tradition’, Hugoye [www.syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye] 2:1 (1999), especially Appendix II there = chapter 22, below. 4 5

28

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

taken over from a Greek biography of St Basil, attributed to Amphilochius of Iconium. It is interesting that another person who supported the identification of the ‘Syrian’ with Ephrem was Severos, patriarch of Antioch, who will have been living at much the same time as the author of the biography. It is only in very recent years that the true identity of St Basil’s ‘Syrian’ has come to light: he is Eusebius of Emesa, an older contemporary of St Ephrem, who had been born in Edessa and so knew Syriac, even though he wrote in Greek (though this only comes down to us in an Armenian translation). 6 For a whole variety of reasons, including the presence of several chronological anachronisms, it seems likely that this identification of Basil’s ‘Syrian’ with Ephrem – wrong, as it turns out – was the inspiration behind the whole episode of Ephrem’s {16} visit to Basil. And for quite different reasons, it is likely that Ephrem’s travel to Egypt to visit St Bishoi is equally unhistorical. Before leaving the biography, there is one other aspect that needs to be mentioned. The biography describes Ephrem as an ascetic monk who lived as a hermit outside Edessa. 7 In the mainstream iconographical tradition St Ephrem is regularly portrayed in the same way, as a monk. Studies in recent decades of the early monastic tradition in Mesopotamia have made it quite clear that in Ephrem’s day the two Egyptian monastic ideals, the eremitical life of St Antony, and the cenobitic life of St Pachomius, had not yet reached Mesopotamia. Instead, Mesopotamia had developed its own individual variety of the consecrated life, which could be designated as ‘proto-monasticism’: in contrast to Egyptian ideal of withdrawal into the desert, in Mesopotamia the consecrated life was normally lived within the community, whether the village or the town: these are the famous bnay and bnoth qyomo, best known from Aphrahat’s Sixth Demonstration. Aphrahat also describes the bnay qyomo by another term, ihidoye. By the sixth century, when the biography of St Ephrem was evidently written, ihidoyo indeed mean ‘solitary, hermit’, but in the fourth century it meant something very different, and the idea of ‘solitary’ was not present; instead, ihidoyo had a variety of other important connotations: primarily, the ihidoyo was a follower of Christ the ihido, the ‘Only-Begotten’, but at the same time the term also had the connotations of ‘single-mindedness’ and ‘single’ in the sense of celibate. Ephrem clearly knew the term ihidoyo in this sense and it is to be found in a number of his writings that are certainly genuine. It is very possible, though not provable, that he himself was an ihidoyo, someone who had undertaken an ascetic vow or promise (sometimes termed a qyomo). It would seem that Ephrem’s transformation into the more familiar figure of a monk was due to this shift in the meaning of ihidoyo that took place between the fourth and the early sixth century. For the discovery of the correct identification, see L. van Rompay, ‘L’informateur syrien de Basile de Césarée’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 58 (1992), pp. 245–51. 7 For the misleading character of this aspect of the biography’s account, see especially S.H. Griffith, ‘Images of Ephrem. The Syrian Holy Man and his Church’ Traditio 45 (1989/90), pp. 7–33; and J. Amar, ‘Byzantine ascetic monachism and Greek bias in the Vita tradition of Ephrem the Syrian’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 58 (1992), pp. 123–56. 6

4. IN SEARCH OF ST EPHREM

29

This new identity has proved very influential: with one exception (to which I shall shortly return), medieval icons, manuscript illuminations and wall paintings depicting St Ephrem regularly portray him dressed in a monastic habit. In the sixteenth/seventeenth, century, when there was a fashion among Greek iconographers, of depicting the death of St Ephrem, the background is regularly filled with small scenes meant to emphasise Ephrem’s former eremitical life-style. 8 Then in the seventeenth and eighteenth century, when his writings were published in western Europe, first just in Latin and Greek translations, then in Syriac as well, the frontispieces to the editions present the reader with the standing figure of St {17} Ephrem in monastic habit. 9 This tradition continues up to the present day wherever St Ephrem is portrayed. 10 Mention was made earlier that there is one exception to this monastic portrayal of St Ephrem. This is to be found in the very earliest depiction of the saint, on a tenth-century icon at St Catherine’s Monastery on Sinai. The icon is divided into four scenes, three of which concern the conversion of king Abgar of Edessa by the apostle Addai. But lower down on the right are two standing figures, identified in an inscription as St Basil and St Ephrem. St Ephrem is here depicted as a deacon, not a monk. 11 That St Ephrem was a deacon is indeed stated in the Syriac biography (where he is said to have been ordained by St Basil – which poses considerable chronological problems); the same information, however, is also given in a much earlier, and more reliable, source, namely the Lives of Illustrious Men by the famous biblical scholar Jerome, writing in 392, only 19 years after Ephrem’s death. Since the portrayal of St Ephrem in monastic dress is definitely an anachronism, whereas his depiction as a deacon is likely to be historically correct, there would be a lot to be said for encouraging modern iconographers to follow the tradition of the tenthcentury icon of St Catherine’s Monastery, as well as the more familiar one of St Ephrem portrayed as a monk. It would, however, be wrong for us to blame the sixth-century biographer of St Ephrem for giving us a historically misleading picture of St Ephrem: he was certainly not writing for the benefit of the modern historian who wants to know what the historical Ephrem was like. Instead, his aim in writing the biography was to make Ephrem relevant to contemporary readers, and to depict him in terms that would be familiar to them. One might compare his aims to those behind to-day’s productions of Shakespeare’s plays in modern dress. By the early sixth century much had An illustration of this is given in S.P. Brock (ed.), The Hidden Pearl. The Syrian Orthodox Church and its Ancient Aramaic Heritage (Rome, 2001), III, p. 41. 9 An outline of the reception history of St Ephrem in Europe is given in my ‘The changing faces of St Ephrem as read in the West’, in J. Behr, A. Louth and D. Conomos (eds), Abba. The Tradition of Orthodoxy in the West. Festschrift for Bishop Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia (Crestwood NY, 2003), pp. 65–80 = chapter 5, below. 10 An example, dated 1835, is illustrated in The Hidden Pearl, III, p. 24. Modern icons of St Ephrem continue this tradition. 11 An illustration of this is given in The Hidden Pearl, II, p. 49. 8

30

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

changed since Ephrem’s lifetime; two of these changes, in particular, explain a number of features in the biography that turn out to be unhistorical. Firstly, Egyptianstyle monasticism had by then completely replaced the old Mesopotamian protomonasticism of Ephrem’s day, and so this would have been completely unfamiliar to sixth-century readers. Moreover, Egyptian monasticism enjoyed immense prestige, with the various writings about it, such as Palladius’ Lausiac History, enjoying huge popularity (as one can see from the large number of sixth century manuscripts of it that survive). Given this popularity of the Egyptian monastic tradition, the sixthcentury biographer of St Ephrem needed to provide a connection between it and his saint: he achieved this by having Ephrem visit St Bishoi. From a historical point of view, this belongs to legend, not fact; but on a symbolic level, by contrast, this is entirely justified, since it is a way of indicating a genuine connection at a deeper level. {18} Exactly the same can be said of the visit to St Basil. By the sixth century the prestige of the Greek cultural world had grown enormously in the eyes of Syriac writers, and one can justifiably speak of a hellenization of much of Syriac literary culture as having taken place in the course of the sixth century. It was thus important for the sixth-century biographer to provide a link, again on a symbolic level, between St Ephrem and a contemporary Greek saint and writer of comparable stature. The identification of Basil’s ‘Syrian’ informant with Ephrem provided a convenient link and focal point, around which to hang the narrative of the visit to Caesarea. Once it is accepted that St Ephrem’s travels to Egypt and Cappadocia serve a symbolic, rather than historical, purpose, then we are able better to appreciate the role of the various miracles and visions which are to be found in the biography. Particularly beautiful, and readily capable of being appreciated by a modern reader, is the story of his vision of a vine sprouting from his tongue, reaching up to the sky and producing myriads of clusters and bunches of grapes – his mimre and his madroshe. 12 While the sixth-century biography served its purpose well enough at the time, and has continued to do so for many centuries, it does not really offer much help to the modern reader who would like to get back to the fourth-century Ephrem, the real St Ephrem. This is not the place to examine the small number of sources earlier than the sixth-century biography, and in any case the information they give us is very limited. Likewise the various texts, such as the Testament of Ephrem, that claim to be autobiographical, have been shown not to be genuine Ephrem. What in fact emerges is that there are very few detail about Ephrem’s life that we do know for certain. Contrary to the sixth-century biography, where his father is a pagan priest, a passing remark in one of Ephrem’s genuine poems implies that The episode is in fact borrowed from the Syriac translation of Palladius’ Lausiac History (Ch. 40). It is not found in Palladius’ Greek text (dating from c. 420), but was introduced into the Syriac translation of another Greek source, namely, a collection of Sayings of Desert Fathers. 12

4. IN SEARCH OF ST EPHREM

31

both his parents were Christian. He certainly served under a series of bishops of Nisibis, beginning with Jacob (who died in 338), and in the Nisibene madroshe he celebrates these men. He will also have witnessed various Persian sieges of Nisibis, one of which, when the Persians flooded the area surrounding the city, Ephrem describes vividly, comparing Nisibis to Noah’s Ark. 13 In the peace treaty of 363, when Nisibis was handed over by the Romans to the Persians, Ephrem became a refugee, having to leave Nisibis along with the rest of the Christian population. The last ten years of his life were spent in Edessa, where he will have become much more directly involved in the theological controversies of his day. Jacob of Serugh’s panegyric of Ephrem speaks of his initiative in starting up choirs of women, and this must certainly be historically correct, since a number of Ephrem’s poems are written specifically for women to sing. This, however, is an aspect I shall be speaking about later on in our conference, so I shall say no more here about it. It seems {19} likely that St Ephrem died on 9th June 373, although there are slight differences in the dates given in the various sources. 14 While we must of necessity be content with only a small amount of information about Ephrem’s actual life, we can resort to his writings in order to discover something about his message. Here, however, we again have a problem at the outset: a huge number of writings under Ephrem’s name has come down to us in many different languages. How can we know which are genuine? Which will allow us to extract from them some idea of his true vision of creation and of salvation history? Once again, we need first of all to look at the vast ocean of materials from a chronological perspective, since attributions of writings to St Ephrem increased as time went on. Anonymous writings, in particular, attract famous names, and here the fact that one of the Syriac poetic metres is known as the metre of St Ephrem did not help, since almost anything in that metre could get falsely attributed to Ephrem. A second difficulty lies in the observable fact that after about the eighth or ninth century certain writings, especially those of older authors, including Ephrem, ceased to be copied in full; instead, they were excerpted and selections were made. One dramatic result of this can be seen in the medieval liturgical tradition. Madroshe, usually expressly attributed to Ephrem, feature regularly in the Night Office (Lilyo) throughout the liturgical year. Quite a number of these can today be identified as genuine Ephrem, but we never find any of Ephrem’s madroshe here in a complete form: isolated stanzas are selected, and quite often re-ordered in a different sequence. In some cases we even find stanzas from several different madroshe combined and mixed together. Needless to say, these rearrangements sometimes alter the character of a poem quite significantly. 15

Nisibene madroshe, 1. This would seem to be the more reliable date, rather than the 15th June, stated in the biography. 15 Examples of all these different fates are given in my ‘The transmission of Ephrem’s madrashe in the Syriac liturgical tradition’, Studia Patristica 33 (1997), pp. 490–505 = chapter 21, below. 13 14

32

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

Fortunately there is a remedy to these difficulties, and for it we have to thank a remarkable Syrian Orthodox abbot of the early tenth century, Mushe of Nisibis, abbot of the Monastery of the Yoldat Aloho of the Syrians, in the desert of Sketis, between Alexandria and Cairo. Mushe had to spend some three years in Baghdad sorting out the tax affairs of the monasteries in Egypt, and while he was waiting for official responses to his requests, he went around collecting up old Syriac manuscripts. When he eventually returned to his monastery he had amassed some two hundred and fifty old manuscripts, and these formed the basis for one of the finest Syriac monastic libraries of the Middle Ages. As recent discoveries of wall-paintings in the monastery’s church indicate, the monastery had always had both Syrian and Coptic monks, but in the early seventeenth century the supply of Syrian Orthodox monks evidently dried up, and the monastery became exclusively Coptic Orthodox For us today this could be said to have had a fortunate consequence, since in the eighteenth century the Vatican Library was able to acquire a large number of these Syriac manuscripts, seeing that the monastery no longer had a practical interested in them; and then in the nineteenth century, the British Museum was likewise able to acquire a great many more of the monastery’s Syriac manuscripts; these are now one of the glories of the British Library. {20} Since it is very rare for manuscripts earlier than about the eleventh or twelfth century to survive in other parts of the Middle East, the preservation, thanks to the dry Egyptian climate, of a large number of fifth- to eighth-century manuscripts at this monastery has proved to be of the utmost importance, not only for our knowledge of Ephrem’s writings, but also for early Syriac literature as a whole, seeing that, in Ephrem’s case, it is only in these early manuscripts that we have collections of his poems in their complete form. 16 An important beginning in publishing this rich new resource was made, shortly after its acquisition by the Vatican Library, by members of the famous Maronite Assemani family who were studying or working in Rome at the time. The great sixvolume edition of Ephrem’s works, covered Greek texts attributed to Ephrem as well as Syriac, but it was only the three Syriac volumes, published between 1737 and 1743, that were of true significance, seeing that here, after a break of nearly a millennium, the complete forms of many of Ephrem’s poems were once again reproduced and made available, this time in printed form. European Syriac scholarship was still in its infancy at that period, so the edition appears not to have made very much impact, and it was only in the nineteenth century, with the acquisition by the British Museum of further early Syriac manuscripts that European scholars really made a start on the serious study of Ephrem’s poetry. In fact it was not until the second half of the twentieth century that Ephrem’s works have finally received reliThe significance, for early Syriac literature as a whole, of Mushe’s manuscripts is brought out in my ‘Without Mushe, where would we be? Some reflections on the transmission of Syriac literature’, Journal of Eastern Christian Studies [= Symposium Syriacum VIII] 56 (2004), pp. 15–24. 16

4. IN SEARCH OF ST EPHREM

33

able editions. In the case of his poetry, this is thanks to Dom Edmund Beck, who steadily produced editions, based on the earliest manuscripts available (several are dated to the sixth century), for the Corpus of Oriental Christian Writers, published in Leuven (Belgium) between 1955 and 1979. It is only through these editions of Ephrem’s poems in their complete form that the true stature of Ephrem, both as a poet and as a theologian, begins to emerge. Thus it is only now, in our own lifetimes, that we are in a position to encounter the real St Ephrem, who has hitherto had to hide behind the misleading medieval tradition where his genuine works had been sadly abbreviated and where many mediocre poems ‘in the metre of Ephrem’ had misleadingly been attributed to him. Here it is significant to note that several recent studies of Ephrem’s thought, based on Beck’s editions, have already begun to indicate something of Ephrem’s stature as a thinker, comparing his approach to that of modern philosophers such as Hans-Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur. 17 On Ephrem as a poet I shall be quite brief, since his reputation has always been well known: appreciation of his poetic skill was already shown in antiquity, in the delightful image of the vine growing out of his tongue, with its clusters of grapes, to {21} which I made reference earlier, which is to be found in the addition made to the Syriac translation of Palladius’ chapter on Ephrem in his Lausiac History, before it was taken up by the sixth-century Syriac biography. It is in his madroshe, above all, that Ephrem shines out as a poet of consummate ability; in these he employed more than fifty different metres, some of an extremely complex structure. He is also a master of subtle word play, something that can unfortunately never be successfully reflected in translation. 18 Without any doubt Ephrem can justly be described as the best poet of early Christianity, outstripping by quite a long way, in my opinion, even his nearest Greek rival, the sixth-century poet Romanos (who in fact originated in Homs, and who may well have been able to read Syriac, thus having access to the poems, not only of Ephrem, but also of his own near contemporary, Jacob of Serugh). Rather than dwell on his poetry (which indeed can only be properly appreciated in its original Syriac), I should like here to give a greater emphasis to Ephrem’s role as a theologian and as a religious thinker. In the modern world, and above all in the Western modern world, one does not expect to find theology expressed in poetry, seeing that prose is the regular vehicle for this. Of course there is plenty of religious See R. Murray, ‘The theory of symbolism in St Ephrem’s theology’, Parole de l’Orient 6/7 (1975/6), pp. 1–20; T. Bou Mansour, La pensée symbolique de saint Ephrem le syrien (Bibliothèque de l’Université Saint-Esprit XVI; Kaslik, 1988); K. den Biesen, Simple and Bold. Ephrem’s Art of Symbolic Throught (Diss. Nijmegen, 2006). A comparison of Ephrem’s approach with that of Charles Bernard in his Théologie symbolique (Paris, 1978) could also prove fruitful. 18 Several aspects of Ephrem’s poetic artistry have been well brought out by A.N. Palmer in a number of articles, e.g. ‘“A Lyre without a Voice”. The poetics and politics of Ephrem the Syrian’, Aram 5 (1993), pp. 371–99. 17

34

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

poetry in different languages, but to employ poetry as a vehicle for presenting a creative theological vision is something very different. This, however, is precisely what Ephrem does: what he offers his readers is a way of looking at the created world in a manner that brings out the interconnections, not only between every part of the created world, animate and inanimate, but also between creation and the Creator. In other words, he seeks to bring out the inter-connectedness – and hence the interdependence – of everything and everyone. Once these interconnections, on both the horizontal and the vertical plane, are properly perceived, right action becomes an imperative: this means responsible action by human beings towards the rest of creation, in other words, towards the environment; and moral action by one human being towards another. Ephrem’s world view is essentially very much in harmony with the best modern ecological thinking. 19 He also expresses on a spiritual and moral level, a world view that would appear to have interesting analogies with some modern understandings of sub-atomic physics. This is of course an area where I am totally incompetent, but it so happened that, when I was in the course of writing a small book on Ephrem’s spiritual world vision, 20 I read Fritjof Capra’s The Turning Point (1982), a book for the layman on modern developments in scientific understanding of the cosmos. Here Capra pointed out that the universe was no longer to be seen as some sort of machine composed {22} of a multitude of separate items; rather (I quote his words), it ‘has to be pictured as one indivisible dynamic whole whose parts are essentially interrelated and can be understood only as patterns of a cosmic process’, where ‘the behavior of any part is determined by its non-local connections to the whole’. While I was reading Capra’s book I was very struck to discover that, mutatis mutandis, Ephrem had been saying exactly the same thing sort of thing, but on a spiritual plane. How then does Ephrem express this remarkably holistic view of creation? Ephrem greatly dislikes definitions in religious discourse, since these put boundaries (‘fines’, in Latin) around the infinite; they give the impression of limiting the limitless. Accordingly, instead of proceeding with the help of a carefully defined set of terms, Ephrem employs a completely different set of tools, in the form of paradoxes, paradigms, analogies, and symbols. The most important term that he uses is, in Syriac, rozo. Syriac inherited the word from earlier Aramaic, where it features in the biblical book of Daniel; there it simply means ‘secret’, and the word itself is a loanword from Iranian. In Syriac, however, it has a much richer and more extended range of meanings. In the Syriac New Testament it translates Greek mysterion, ‘mysFor this aspect of Ephrem, see my ‘Humanity and the natural world in the Syriac tradition’, Sobornost/Eastern Churches Review 12 (1990), pp. 131–42; R. Murray, ‘The Ephremic tradition and the theology of the environment’, Hugoye [www.syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye] 2:1 (1999); and J. Naduvilezham, ‘The eco-spiritual vision of St Ephrem’, Christian Orient 24 (2003), pp. 134–9. 20 The Luminous Eye: the Spiritual World Vision of St Ephrem (Rome, 1985; Kalamazoo, 1992); see pp. 167–8 of the 1992 edition (there are French, Italian, Arabic and Romanian translations). 19

4. IN SEARCH OF ST EPHREM

35

tery’, and the plural roze, like the Greek plural ta mysteria, refers par excellence to the Divine Mysteries of the Qurobo, or Eucharist. One certainly finds this sense in Ephrem, but for him rozo is more frequently a relational term, in that it points to some divine reality, which Ephrem usually simply calls ‘truth’ (shroro); in this relational sense rozo can usually best be translated in English as ‘symbol’; however, one immediately needs to stress that ‘symbol’ is not to be understood in the weak sense, common in contemporary English, where the symbol is essentially different from the reality it points to. Instead, for Ephrem (and for his contemporaries writing in Greek), the symbol is ontologically linked to the divine reality it points to: inherent in the rozo there is what Ephrem calls ‘the hidden power’ (haylo kasyo’ ). Roze are everywhere, both in ‘the Book (ktobo)’, that is, Scripture, and in the Natural World (kyono): Wherever you turn your eyes, there is God’s symbol, whatever you read, there you will find his types. (Madroshe on Virginity 20:12).

Their purpose in the first place is to serve as the means through which God discloses himself to his creation, seeing that humanity is totally incapable of crossing over the chasm’, as Ephrem calls it, that exists between Creator and creation: If God had not wished to disclose Himself to us there would not have been anything in creation able to elucidate anything at all about Him. (Madroshe on Faith 44:7)

Ephrem is always very emphatic about the importance of God’s gift to human beings of freewill; as he points out in the following quotation, Any kind of adornment that is the result of compulsion is not genuine, for it is merely imposed. Herein lies the greatness of God’s gift (of freewill), than a person can adorn himself of his own accord, in that God has removed all compulsion. (Nisibene Madroshe 16:11)

{23}

Thus God’s manifestation of himself to humanity by means of these roze does not force itself on human beings, for they lie hidden: what is required in order to see them is the interior eye of faith. According to an understanding of optics current in Ephrem’s day, the physical eye, is enabled to see through the presence of light in it; Ephrem’s interior eye functioned in a similar way: in order to see, it required, not light, but faith. And faith is what gives life to the soul: Just as the body keeps alive by means of the soul, so too does the life of the soul depend on faith; if it denies, or becomes divided by doubt, it becomes a mere corpse. (Madroshe on Faith 80:1)

The roze, or symbols, pointers to God and to divine reality, are present everywhere, available to everyone, but for them to become apparent and meaningful there needs

36

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

to be an initial response of faith, so that the interior eye is enabled to perceive the roze. Furthermore, for the interior eye to function properly by the light of faith, it needs to be keep pure, that is unclouded by sin and wrongdoing: only then will it be in a position to become ‘luminous’ (shfitho). Once the interior eye has acquired an initial awareness of the presence of the roze, this has the effect of increasing faith, so that the interior eye in enabled to see the roze more and more clearly – and in ever greater numbers. At one point Ephrem humorously cries out for help as he finds he is drowning in roze: This Jesus has made so many symbols that I have fallen into the sea of them! (Nisibene Madroshe 39:17)

Since many roze, especially those in the Old Testament, point to Christ, the Word of God incarnate, Ephrem speaks of him as being the hermeneutical ‘key’ that opens ‘the hidden treasury of roze, that is, of mysteries, or symbols’ (Madroshe on Virginity 5:16): roze become fully meaningful once the Word of God has become embodied. Besides faith, another essential element in all human response to the divine initiative is the presence of an attitude of love, thus reciprocating the love shown by the Creator to his creation in providing the roze in the first place as a means by which humanity might gain a knowledge of God: Your fountain, Lord, is hidden from the person who does not thirst for You; Your treasury seems empty to the person who rejects You. Love is the treasurer of Your heavenly treasure store. (Madroshe on Faith 32:3)

{24}

The absolute need for an attitude of love on the part of the individual human in his or her quest for ‘Truth’ is brought out in another poem by means of the image of a bird needing both wings to fly. Truth stretches down from the divine world, while Love stretches up; only when divine Truth is met by human Love can they fly together: Truth and Love are wings which cannot be separated, for Truth, without (the response of) Love is unable to fly (down), and so too, Love without Truth is unable to soar up: their yoke is one of harmony. (Madroshe on Faith 20:12)

If, however, someone tries to approach Truth, or divine reality, with the wrong attitude, then this will prove futile: A person who seeks after Truth with a grudging spirit cannot gain knowledge even if he actually encounters it, for envy has clouded his mind, and he does not get any the wiser,

4. IN SEARCH OF ST EPHREM

37

even if he grabs at that knowledge. (Madroshe on Faith 17:1)

Ephrem also sees right attitude as being equally essential on, as it were, a horizontal level, as well: in the relationships between human beings, and between human beings and the environment (in Ephrem’s terminology, the rest of creation). Since human beings are endowed with free will, they have the possibility all the time of making good or bad choices in all their actions: the consequences of wrong choices, of injustice, have can have unexpected consequences. Ephrem expresses this through the biblical example of Jezebel (1 Kings 21), who in order to get hold of some property, got some people to make false accusations against the owner, Naboth, as a result of which he was put to death: Because Jezebel defrauded Truth, the earth refused its produce, the womb of the earth held back, as a reproof, the seeds that the farmer had lent it: the earth suffocated the seeds within itself {25} because its inhabitants had deceitfully held back truth. (Madroshe on Virginity 7:3)

Reduced to its basic elements, St Ephrem’s message is that the divine initiative in creating the world and endowing human beings with free will, requires a right response on the part of human beings; and that response needs to be rooted in a sense of both justice and love. While this response, rooted in love and justice, must start out on a vertical plane, as it were, between the individual human person and God, in order to be meaningful, the rootedness in justice and love and needs equally to be found on a horizontal level, between different human beings, and between human beings and their environment. What St Ephrem is offering us is an essentially sacramental view of the created world, which is just as relevant today as it was in his own lifetime. Had St Ephrem lived today he would hardly have been surprised at the ecological crisis in which the modern world finds itself involved, in view of the abusive and exploitative way in which modern man has acted in the past – and all too often continues to do so in the present too. But let St Ephrem have the final word: In his Book Moses described the creation of the natural world, so that both the natural world and the Book might testify to the Creator: the natural world, through humanity’s use of it, the Book through his reading of it. (Madroshe on Paradise 5:2)

5

THE CHANGING FACES OF ST EPHREM AS READ IN THE WEST * Only two Syriac Fathers were known and read in the medieval West, St Ephrem and St Isaac ‘the Syrian’. In both cases their works had reached Latin by way of a Greek intermediary. In the case of St Isaac, a substantial body of his works had been translated from Syriac into Greek in the Palestinian Monastery of Mar Saba in the late eighth or early ninth century, only a century or so after St Isaac’s death. From Greek, a selection of homilies were put into Latin perhaps in the fourteenth century, and thence into a variety of Romance languages a century later – after which they received little attention until the late twentieth century, when a spate of new translations into European languages have been made. 1 The situation with St Ephrem happens to be very different, and considerably more complicated. Latin translations (from Greek) of some works under his name are already attested in the sixth century, and a small corpus of these were (to judge by the number of manuscripts) widely read throughout the medieval period. This smaller corpus in Latin was considerably enlarged in the fifteenth century, and yet further in the late sixteenth. Only in the early eighteenth century, however, did some of the Greek texts underlying the Latin receive publication (in Oxford), while the original Syriac of Ephrem’s main works (accompanied by a Latin translation) had to wait until well into the eighteenth century before these became available in Europe. A further twofold complication in the case of Ephrem is that (a) in all three languages many works under his name are not in fact by him, and (b) only a small number of the texts in Greek and Latin have a known Syriac counterpart; in the case of a few others a Syriac original may well have once {66} existed, but a large proporOriginally published in J. Behr, A. Louth, D. Conomos (eds.), Abba. The Tradition of Orthodoxy in the West. Festschrift for Bishop Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia (Crestwood NY, 2003), 65–80. 1 Details of the translations of St Isaac are given in my chapter on him in G.Conticello (ed.), La théologie Byzantine (Turnhout, forthcoming), and “From Qatar to Tokyo, by way of Mar Saba: the translations of Isaac of Beth Qatraye (Isaac the Syrian)”, Aram 11/12 (1999/2000), 275–84. *

39

40

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

tion of the remainder can only have originated in Greek (some of these are also transmitted in the manuscripts under other names, such as Makarios and John Chrysostom). Yet another difficulty lies in the fact that some of the Latin translations, in turn, have no known Greek counterparts, while others are closer to the Syriac originals than to the surviving Greek intermediaries. With such an array of problems, it is not surprising that the Latin and Greek texts under Ephrem’s name have received very little attention from modern editors. 2 As a result, one still needs to consult early sixteenth-century editions for almost all the Latin texts, and the eighteenth-century ones for the Greek (though one of these has now been reprinted in Greece in a more convenient form). Since differing texts under Ephrem’s name have been read over the centuries in Europe the impression these have given of the character of their supposed author has altered, and so it is important to know upon which texts any particular portrait of St Ephrem is based. This of course means that the veracity and appropriateness of any portayal of St Ephrem, whether in words or in icons, will depend on whether the texts upon which it is based are authentically Ephrem’s or not. As will emerge from the following rapid sketch, the texts available in Europe at any given time point to several rather different Ephrems, among whom the true St Ephrem has only emerged within the last half century or so. Writing less than two decades after St Ephrem’s death, Jerome already knew of a Greek translation of one of his works (which cannot be identified with any surviving work under his name), and Sozomen, in the second quarter of the fifth century, states that works of Ephrem were translated into Greek during the author’s lifetime and “are even now being made”. 3 In Greek, as in Syriac, St Ephrem soon suffered the consequences of popularity by having numerous works attributed to him which he had never written, and the impressive quantity of these can readily be ascertained by consulting the second volume of the Clavis Patrum Graecorum (CPG) where the entry on Ephrem Graecus runs to just over 100 pages, thus taking up more space than any Greek Father apart from St John Chrysostom.

THE FIRST LATIN TRANSLATION

It so happens that the earliest Greek papyrus to have been studied in Europe 4 consists of some sixth-century fragments of the Greek work attributed to Ephrem on the Patriarch Joseph (CPG 3938). These had originally been preserved in the monas{67}

Valiant work, in making a start on sorting out the Greek tradition, was done by D.Hemmerdinger-Iliadou in a series of articles, the most important of which are to be found in the Dictionnaire de Spiritualité IV (1960) 800–819, and in her posthumous “Ephrem: versions grecque, latine et slave. Addenda et corrigenda”, Epeteris Hetairias Buzantinon Spoudon 42 (1975/6) 320–73. 3 Jerome, De viris illustribus 115, dating from 392; Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History III.16. 4 By B. de Montfaucon in his pioneering Palaeographia Graeca (1708). 2

5. THE CHANGING FACES OF ST EPHREM AS READ IN THE WEST

41

tery of St Martin in Tours, 5 and it seems likely that the manuscript, fragments of which were later recycled in a binding, will have reached France at an early date; in this connection one recalls that towards the end of the sixth century Gregory of Tours made his translation of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus, probably from Greek, with the help of a certain Syrian named Ioannes, and so it is not surprising that the earliest surviving Latin manuscript of a work under Ephrem’s name also dates from the sixth century and also has a connection with the same town. The work in question is the very popular Sermo asceticus 6 and further testimony to the existence of an early Latin translation of this is provided by the quotations from it in Defensor of Ligugé’s Liber Scintillarum, 7 dating from around 700. 8 Another very early Latin manuscript, of the sixth or seventh century, contains a free rendering of the narrative poem on Jonah and the Repentance of Nineveh, whose Syriac text is almost certainly by Ephrem himself. The Greek intermediary was for a long time thought to have been lost, but it has now been published from a single known manuscript. 9 A detailed description of the fragments is given in K. Aland and H-U. Rosenbaum, Repertorium der griechischen christlichen Papyri II/1, Kirchenväter-Papyri, Beschreibungen (Patristische Texte und Studien 42; 1995) 171–96. A Latin translation of this work has been published from a ninth/tenth-century manuscript by L.Bailly, “Une traduction latine d’un sermon d’Ephrem dans le Clm 3516”, Sacris Erudiri 21 (1972/3) 71–70. 6 Paris, BN Lat. 12634; the Sermo asceticus (CPG 3909; CPL 1143 vi) features in its collection of monastic rules. The Syriac sources for the Greek text are listed in the entry for CPG 3909. An early Greek uncial fragment has recently been identified as part of the underwriting in the famous Sinaiticus Syriacus (Sinai Syr. 30) Gospel manuscript: see S. Voicu, in Scriptorium 38 (1984), 77–78. 7 Defensor delightfully states that his aim in providing this collection of excerpts was “to spare readers the trouble of reading many volumes”. (Since Ligugé was founded by Martin of Tours, this provides yet a further link between Latin manuscripts of Ephrem and that town). 8 J. Kirchmeyer and D. Hemmerdinger-Iliadou, “S.Ephrem et le Liber Scintillarum”, Recherches de Science Religieuse, 46 (1958), 545–50. Nine out of the fifteen quotations from Ephrem identified by the editor of the work (H.Rochais) are from the Sermo asceticus. 9 The Latin text (CPL 1149, in Vatican, Palat. 210, the only known manuscript) was published by A. Mai, Nova Patrum Bibliotheca I (Rome, 1852) 193–204. The Syriac (= Sermones II.1) is edited by E. Beck, in the Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 311–12, 1970; and the Greek (CPG 4082) by D. Hemmerdinger-Iliadou, in Le Muséon 80 (1967) 52–74 (reprinted, with a Modern Greek translation, in Athens (no date) by the Kentron Meleton Hosiou Ephraim tou Surou). A table of the correspondence between the Greek and the Syriac can be found in my “Ephrem’s Verse homily on Jonah and the Repentance of Nineveh: notes on the textual tradition”, in A. Schoors and P. van Deun (eds), Polyhistor: Miscellanea in honorem C.Laga (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 60; Leuven, 1994) 71–86 (esp. 82–5) = chapter 19, below. 5

42

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

By the ninth century a small corpus of eight Latin texts under Ephrem’s name was circulating, six of which are normally found together. 10 Among these six are the Sermo asceticus (known under the title de compunctione cordis) and the de paenitentia (CPG 3915; CPL 1143 iii), whose great popularity in the Middle Ages is attested by the very large number of surviving manuscripts. 11 One further work, the Life of Abraham and his niece Mary (CPG 3937), was likewise to prove remarkably popular. This delightful narrative (whose authorship is left anonymous in the earliest manuscript of the Syriac original) must have been translated from Greek into Latin already in the sixth century, for the earliest surviving manuscript in Latin dates from the second half of the seventh century. 12 In the late tenth century the work caught the imagination of the enterprising Benedictine nun Hrotswitha of Gandersheim, who adapted it in what is often thought to be the best of her Terentian-style plays. Against the Life, she has the play open with a dialogue between Abraham and Ephrem: {68}

ABRAHAM: Brother Ephrem, my dear comrade in the hermit life, may I speak to you now [about Mary, my niece], or shall I wait until you have finished your divine praises?

EPHREM: And what can you have to say to me which is not praise of Him who said ‘Where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am with them’? 13

It would be nice to suppose that Theophano, the Emperor Otto II’s Greek wife, met and chatted with Hrosthwitha on one of her visits to the Convent in Gandersheim. 14 {69}

See especially on these manuscripts D. Ganz, “Knowledge of Ephrem’s writings in the Merovingian and Carolingian age”, Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 2:1 (1999) [http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye]. A pioneering work on the manuscripts of Ephrem in Latin is A. Siegmund’s Die Überlieferung der griechischen christlichen Literatur in der lateinischen Kirche bis zum zwölften Jahrhundert (Munich, 1939) 67–71. 11 T.S. Pattie, “Early printed editions of Ephraem Latinus and their relationship to the manuscripts”, Studia Patristica 20 (1989) 50–53, states that there are 128 for the former and about 90 for the latter. Both works were the source of prayers (e.g. Prayer 45 in the Book of Cerne): P. Sims-Williams, “Thoughts on Ephrem the Syrian in Anglo-Saxon England”, in M. Lapidge and H. Gneuss (eds), Learning and Literature in Anglo-Saxon England (Cambridge, 1985) 205–26. T.H. Bestul, “Ephraim the Syrian and Old English poetry”, Anglia 99 (1981) 1–24, is perhaps rather too negative on the subject of the possible influence of the Latin Ephrem. 12 Edited by A. Wilmart, “Les redactions latines de la Vie d’Abraham Ermite”, Revue Bénédictine 50 (1938) 222–45 (with another translation, also probably old). 13 I use the translation by Christopher St John, The Plays of Roswitha (London, 1923), in preference to the very free rendering of K.M. Wilson, Hrotsvit of Gandersheim. A Florilegium of her Works (Cambridge 1998). 10

5. THE CHANGING FACES OF ST EPHREM AS READ IN THE WEST

43

In the case of some of the early Latin translations of works under Ephrem’s name there is evidence that the text developed over the course of the centuries, and it is even possible that the translations may at times have been revised on the basis of the Greek. One context where there does seem to have been direct contact with the Greek Ephrem is the School of Canterbury in the seventh century, and more particularly in the person of Archbishop Theodore of Tarsus, whose teaching has recently been shown to lie behind a collection of important biblical glosses, and who may also be the author of a work known as the Laterculus Malalianus (so named because it is in part a translation of a work by John Malalas): in each of these works Ephrem is cited as an authority, and the source for one of these references is a Greek work not known in Latin translation, while the other cannot be identified and is certainly not from the early Latin corpus. 15 It has been said that in the medieval West “il n’etait guère de monastère important dont la bibliothèque ne possédat son Liber Effrem”. 16 This would consist of the standard corpus of the six works known under the Latin titles of de poenitentia, de luctaminibus saeculi, de compunctione, de beatitudine animae, de resurrectione, and de die iudicii. 17 At some date shortly before 1491 these were printed by Kilian Fischer (Piscator), and even today, as P.Petitmengin rather wistfully remarks, “l’édition la plus accessible [du texte latin] … est encore l’incunable publié à Fribourg par Kilian Fischer”. 18 {70} Although a French translation of this was published in Paris in 1501, and the Latin text was reprinted at Basel in 1491, Cologne in 1547, and Dillingen in 1563, this particular Latin tradition subsequently fell from favour, being replaced by two much more extensive (and more recent) translations from Greek, one by Ambrosius Camaldulensis (Ambrogio Traversari), printed at the end of the fifteenth century, and the other by Gerard Vossius at the end of the sixteenth. Hrosthwitha’s Abbess Gerberga II is said to have known Greek. For the influence of Ephrem on other medieval German writers see M. Schmidt, “Influence de saint Ephrem sur la littérature latine et allemande du début du moyen-âge”, Parole de l’Orient 4 (1973), 325–41. 15 See B. Bischoff and M. Lapidge, Biblical Commentaries from the Canterbury School of Theodore and Hadrian (Cambridge, 1994) 402–3, with 514 (Lapidge also draws attention to the possibility that Theodore made a wider use of Syriac sources, whether or not by way of a Greek intermediary: pp. 233–40); and J. Stevenson, The ‘Laterculus Malalianus’ and the School of Archbishop Theodore (Cambridge, 1995) 148–9; see also her ‘Ephraim the Syrian in AngloSaxon England’, in Hugoye 1:2 (1998) [see note 10]. 16 Thus D. Hemmerdinger-Iliadou, in Dictionnaire de Spiritualité 4 (1960) 818. 17 This is the sequence given by Vincent of Beauvais (d. 1264) in his Speculum historiale XIV.87 (he actually speaks of seven opuscula but lists only six (the de compunctione may have been treated as two books). The order in the manuscripts varies. See the Appendix for the corresponding Greek (and Syriac, where available) texts. 18 In Revue des Etudes Augustiniennes 17 (1971) 9. It is a pity that the opportunity of reprinting the text of this old edition was missed in Supplement IV (1966) to the Patrologia Latina, where a section is devoted to Ephrem Latinus (604–48). 14

44

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

TWO SUBSEQUENT LATIN TRANSLATIONS

Whereas the contents of the early Latin translation correspond reasonably well with what Demokratia Hemmerdinger-Iliadou described as the pre-iconoclastic Greek collection, of Syro- Palestinian provenance, the fifteenth- and sixteenth-century ones evidently derive from a much larger Greek corpus: in the ninth century Photios already knew of a collection of 49 texts, 19 and later Greek manuscripts often have even larger collections. It is thus not surprising that the two later Latin translations are much more extensive than the first. The new early fifteenth-century Latin translation from Greek, made by the well-known translator of Greek patristic texts, Ambrogio Traversari (d. 1439), contained 19 pieces. 20 His work enjoyed a considerable popularity, to judge by the various reprints, and it was also the source used for various vernacular translations. 21 The translations include what is probably the earliest English version of any work under Ephrem’s name; this was published in 1640 as an appendix to a translation of a work by Cardinal John Fisher (1469–1535; canonized in 1935). 22 {71} A far more extensive collection of new Latin translations from Greek was made by Gerardus Vossius and printed in three volumes in Rome (1589, 1593, and 1598). 23 These contain over 120 texts. Among them is one that is particularly intriguing: in the third volume is a short piece entitled “Threni, id est, Lamentationes Virginis Mariae super passione Domini” (pp. 697–8), beginning “Stans iuxta crucem pura et immaculata virgo, salvatoremque in ea suspensum cernens, dirissimas plagas perpendens…”. No source for this is known in the Ephrem Graecus corpus, but it now turns out that it corresponds exactly with an anonymous Greek Threnos. 24 Bibliotheca, codex 196. Photios notes that, despite the tapeinotes and khudaiotes of the style (which he attributes to the translator), the soteria and opheleia of Ephrem’s words was nevertheless apparent. 20 The corresponding Greek texts in Assemani’s edition are listed by D.HemmerdingerIliadou, “Ephrem: versions grecque, latine et slave”, p. 349 (see also the Appendix, below). She notes that no Greek manuscript known to her has the same order as the Latin translation. 21 According to S. Mercati (Bessarione 1920, p. 189) the first edition was 1481 (and not 1475, as is usually stated); this was followed by a number of further editions in the course of the next 25 years (I have used that of 1505, Cologne). 22 Cardinal John Fisher, A Treatise of Prayer and of the Fruits and Manner of Prayer, translated into English by R.A.B. (Paris, 1640) 241–71. The translator nicely prefaces this with the following excuse: “Gentle Reader, by reason of these vacant pages, I thought good in respect this little Armour of S. Ephrem, doth something to conduce to the present Discourse to adde it as a postscript for thy further instruction” (the translator had dedicated his work to Lady Elizabeth Herbert of Powis Castle). “The Armour” corresponds to CPG 4020, and to Sermo 8 in Ambrogio’s translation. 23 The edition enjoyed at least two reprints (Cologne 1603 and 1616). 24 Edited by M.I. Manousakis, in Mélanges Octave et Melpo Merlier, II, (Athens, 1956), pp. 49–60; I am most grateful to W.F. Bakker for this information and the reference (letter of 2 19

5. THE CHANGING FACES OF ST EPHREM AS READ IN THE WEST

45

An intriguing feature of Vossius’s edition is the portrait of St Ephrem that prefaces the volumes. St Ephrem, who is portrayed as a monk, stands holding a scroll with an inscription in Greek “Love and temperance (enkrateia) purify the soul”. An accompanying note states that the portrait was derived from an icon “in the monastery of Sula, now inhabited by the Armenians”. The Sulu Manastir in Constantinople, better known as the Monastery of the Theotokos Peribleptos, had indeed been transferred to Armenian hands over a century earlier to become the seat of the Armenian Patriarchate. 25 As it happened, the portrait was to prove influential, for it was taken over in the volumes of the great Roman edition of Ephrem’s works (1732–1746); it might also be a candidate for the source, as yet unidentified, of the portrait of St Ephrem in the frieze with the heads of Sages in the Upper Reading Room of the Bodleian Library in Oxford, dating from 1618/19. 26 It likewise features in the recent Athens reprint of the Homily on Jonas. 27 {72}

THE GREEK TEXT BECOMES AVAILABLE

Given the interest in making new Latin translations from Greek in the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth century, it is astonishing that no humanist scholar should have edited any of the Greek texts themselves. 28 This task was left to the Oxford Anglo-Saxon scholar, Edward Thwaites (1667–1711). Like many scholars of his time, Thwaites could turn his hands to many things and in 1708 he was appointed Regius Professor of Greek. His edition of Greek works under Ephrem’s name was published the following year, in 1709. The antiquarian Thomas Hearne, a former friend but with whom he was no longer on friendly terms, unkindly described the work as “a mean performance”; perhaps what he meant was that the presentation was hardly what would be called today “reader-friendly”: there is no introduction, and not only title page, but also the pagination, is in Greek (Thwaites modestly does not even put his name on the title page!). However, for the reader proficient in Greek it was a very valuable undertaking, and it is even provided with an index of incipits and of biblical references. Nov 1997); see now W.F. Bakker and D.M.L. Philippides, “The Lament of the Virgin by Ephraem the Syrian”, in S. Kaklamanis, A. Markopoulos and Y. Mavromatis (eds), Enthymesis Nikolaou M.Panagiotaki (Heraklion, 2000), pp. 39–56. The Latin text was reprinted in the Assemani edition (III, pp. 574–5). 25 R. Janin, La géographie ecclésiastique de l’empire byzantin, I.3 [Constantinople;] Les églises et les monastères (Paris, 1969) 220 gives “1643”, but this is incorrect: see the references given in my “A medieval Armenian pilgrim’s description of Constantinople”, Revue des Etudes Arméniennes NS 4 (1967), p. 98, notes 85–87. 26 On the frieze see M.R.A. Bullard, “Talking Heads. The Bodleian frieze. Its inspiration, sources, designer and significance”, The Bodleian Library Record 14:6 (1994) 461–500; for Ephrem (no 188) see especially pp. 493–4. 27 See note 9, above. 28 The only Greek texts of Ephraim printed in the seventeenth century seem to be some prayers, incorporated in a collection edited by M. Tzigala (Venice, 1681).

46

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

Much of Thwaites’s work in fact lives on indirectly today, since it is the main source for what remains the standard source of reference to Ephraim Graecus, namely the first three volumes of the six-volume edition of Ephrem’s works, edited by J.S. Assemani, S.P.N. Ephraem Syri Opera Omnia (Rome, 1732–46). In these volumes Assemani brings together a great deal of the Greek and Latin corpora, often deriving his material from earlier editions (and in particular, that of Thwaites for the first two volumes). 29 It is largely from these three volumes that the recent sevenvolume Greek edition of Ephrem Graecus, edited by K. Phrantzolas, derives (Athens, 1988–98). Though a beginning was made on a critical edition of the Greek texts by S.G. Mercati at the beginning of the twentieth century, only a single fascicle ever appeared, 30 and the subsequent plans for an edition, by D. Hemmerdinger-Iliadou, who did so much to sort out the confused Greek tradition, were unfortunately never realised. 31 {73}

THE ARRIVAL OF THE SYRIAC ORIGINAL TEXTS

As late as the latter part of the seventeenth century it was possible for a great scholar such as Pierre Daniel Huet to suppose that, once Ephrem’s works had been translated into Greek, their Syriac originals had got lost. 32 Huet must have overlooked Vossius’s second volume, which includes a translation by Vossius that he had made “e Chaldaeo ac Syriaco”, adding that he had done this on the basis of a literal translation he had asked the students of the Maronite College in Rome to make. In fact, already in the sixteenth century well-informed scholars like Andreas Masius were aware of the existence of Syriac works, no doubt thanks to information from his teacher of Syriac, the Syrian Orthodox priest Moses of Mardin, the man largely responsible for the magnificent first edition of the Syriac New Testament (Vienna 1555). Moses would primarily have had in mind the vast number of hymns under Ephrem’s name that feature in the Syrian Orthodox Fenqitho, or Festal Hymnary. Vossius’s Latin translation of a Syriac text of Ephrem probably has the distinction of being the first European translation from Syriac of a text attributed to Ephrem. 33 In the course of the seventeenth century a number of Syriac liturgical texts that included works under Ephrem’s name were printed in Rome, mainly for The correspondences are given by D. Hemmerdinger-Iliadou, “Les manuscrits de l’Ephrem grec utilisés par Thwaites”, Scriptorium 13 (1959) 261–2. 30 S.Ephraem Syri Opera. I.1, Sermones in Abraham et Isaac, in Basilium magnum, in Eliam (Rome, 1915). 31 For her plans, see her “Vers une nouvelle édition de l’Ephrem grec”, Studia Patristica 3 (= Texte und Untersuchungen 78, 1961) 72–80. The single edition by her that did appear was that of the important text on Jonah (see note 9); she died in 1976. 32 Quoted by W.E.Tentzel in his Dissertatio de Ephremo Syro (Arnstadt, 1685), section 7. 33 The Syriac text was subsequently published in Volume V (1740) of the Roman edition (pp. 336–8); it also features in several modern Syrian Orthodox anthologies. 29

5. THE CHANGING FACES OF ST EPHREM AS READ IN THE WEST

47

Maronite use, 34 but these do not appear to have received any attention from those European scholars who had an interest in Syriac. The men who altered the situation radically were Maronite scholars, for the most part from the Assemani family. Most prominent among them was Joseph Simon Assemani (1687–1768), editor of the Greek and Latin works in the great Roman edition of Ephrem, mentioned above. J.S. Assemani was a man of prodigious learning and had been sent to Rome to study at the tender age of eight. In 1715 (and again in 1717) he was sent by Pope Clement XI to Egypt, to buy ancient Syriac manuscripts from the library of the Syrian Monastery in the Wadi Natrun (between Alexandria and Cairo). 35 Thanks to a tenth-century abbot, Moses of Nisibis, this monastery had built up a {74} remarkable collection of very old Syriac manuscripts, but since the monastery had passed into Coptic Orthodox hands in 1636, these manuscripts were no longer of any direct interest to the monks. As a result of these visits the Vatican Library acquired its superb collection of Syriac manuscripts 36 (rivalled only by the British Museum – now British Library – which acquired an even better collection from the same source in the mid nineteenth century). Among the trophies brought back from Egypt were no less than three sixth-century manuscripts containing Ephrem’s poems, all dated (519, 522, and 552). Luckily all three had escaped a dip in the Nile when a boat carrying a load of the manuscripts capsized in a sudden squall, and so were available to be used for the Syriac volumes (IV–VI) of the Roman edition of Ephrem’s works. While the first three volumes, with the Greek and Latin works, contained little that was new, these final three volumes (1737, 1740, 1746) all contained hitherto unknown Syriac works by Ephrem, accompanied by a (remarkably free in places!) Latin translation. 37 Although the entire Roman edition is usually referred to as being the work of Assemani (that is, J.S. Assemani, the editor of the first three volumes), the editing for the three SyriacLatin volumes was in fact largely done by Petrus Benedictus (Moubarak), though after his death the work was taken over by another Assemani (Stephanus Evodius). The Maronite Weekday Office (Shehimto) was first printed in Rome in 1624, and the Festal Hymnary (Fenqitho) in 1656. An edition of the Syrian Catholic Weekday Office (Shehimo), published in 1696, even mentions Ephrem in the title: Breviarium Feriale Syriacum SS Ephraemi et Jacobi Syrorum iuxta ritum eiusdem nationis. 35 Already in 1707 Pope Clement had sent another member of the Assemani family, Elias, on a similar mission. 36 On the basis of these J.S.Assemani produced his massive (and still important) fourvolume work on Syriac literature, Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana (Rome, 1719–28). 37 F.C. Burkitt, perhaps a little unkindly, described this edition as “one of the most confusing and misleading works ever published”, St Ephrem’s Quotations from the Gospels (Texts and Studies VII.2; Cambridge, 1901) 4. On pp. 6–19 of this study Burkitt usefully identifies, where possible, the manuscript sources employed for the edition. The Latin text of all six volumes was subsequently reprinted in two volumes in Venice, 1755–6 (likewise in various volumes of A.B. Caillou’s vast nineteenth-century Collectio selecta SS. Ecclesiae Patrum). 34

48

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

The publication of these last three volumes made available for the first time in Europe, not only a large collection, in the original Syriac, of works attributed to Ephrem, but also of many that are certainly genuine and represent some of his finest poetry. It would be interesting to know something of its reception history, and in this connection it is tempting to suppose that John Wesley, who called Ephrem “the most awakening writer among all the ancients”, might have been inspired by Ephrem for some of his hymns. However, when he read Ephrem aloud to Sophy Hopkey, with whom he had fallen in love in Georgia in 1736, this must have been from the Greek or Latin, since the first volume of the Syriac only came out the following year, and this volume happened to contain only prose works. 38 {75} The Roman edition of the Syriac texts is not an easy one to use, 39 and so the vocalized edition of 19 poems taken from it by A.Hahn and F.L.Sieffert, in their Chrestomathia Syriaca sive S. Ephraemi Carmina Selecta (Leipzig, 1825), provided a considerably easier introduction to Ephrem’s poetry, especially as the texts were now set out in verse form. Far more accessible to the ordinary reader, however, were the various translations that started appearing in the nineteenth century. The earliest to undertake the popularisation of Ephrem was Pius Zingerle, whose Ausgewählte Schriften des hl. Ephräm von Syrien, aus dem Syrischen und Griechischen übersetzt was first published in six volumes over the years 1831–1845, to be republished several times in different formats. Not surprisingly, Ephrem’s writings appealed in England to the Oxford Movement, and an important product of this interest was J.B. Morris’s Select Works of Saint Ephrem the Syrian. 40 Another person, but with no connection with the Oxford Movement, who translated selections from Ephrem’s Syriac poems (including that on Jonah and the Repentance of Nineveh) was H. Burgess 41 (among the subscribers to the volume on the Repentance of Nineveh were Prince Albert and A.H. Layard). In some cases these early English translations have not yet been superseded. Some of Burgess’s translations were versified for use as hymns by Horatius Bonar, while other hymn writers drew their material from the third volume of On Wesley and Ephrem see G. Wakefield, “John Wesley and Ephraem Syrus”, in Hugoye 1:2 (1998) [note 10]. It is also possible that he might have read to her from the anonymous English translation (from Thwaites’s edition) of the Sermo Compunctorius (CPG 3908): A Serious Exhortation to Repentance and Sorrow for Sin and a Strict and Mortified Life, printed by Wm Bowyer (London, 1731). (I am most grateful to Archimandrite Ephrem Lash for drawing my attention to this work). 39 It is customary to refer to the Greek-Latin volumes as I–III, and the Syriac-Latin as IV–VI, even though they were not published in that sequence. CPG is the invaluable guide to Vols. I–III; for IV–VI, there are various ones, including my “A brief guide to the main editions and translations of the works of St Ephrem”, chapter 24, below. 40 Oxford 1847. Morris’s devotion to fasting earned him the nick-name “Symeon Stylites”; the background is vividly described by G. Rowell, “‘Making the Church of England poetical’. Ephraim and the Oxford Movement”, in Hugoye 2:1 (1999) [note 10]. 41 The Repentance of Nineveh: a Metrical Homily on the Mission of Jonah by Ephrem Syrus (London, 1853); and Select Metrical Hymns and Homilies of Ephrem Syrus (London, 1853). 38

5. THE CHANGING FACES OF ST EPHREM AS READ IN THE WEST

49

H.A. Daniel’s Thesaurus Hymnologicus (Halle, 1841–6), which included material translated from Syriac (this was contributed by L. Splieth). 42 Another person who deserves mention here is one of the more eccentric dilettante scholars of the nineteenth century, S.C. Malan (1814–1894). He {76} was a man with an extraordinary facility for languages: besides knowing such tongues as Tibetan, Chinese and Japanese, he also had an interest in the various languages and literatures of the Christian Orient, including Syriac from which he translated several pieces. 43 Amongst his other remarkable linguistic feats was to preach in Georgian in Kutais Cathedral! The nineteenth century saw the publication of a number of completely new texts by Ephrem, such as his Commentary on the Diatessaron, known at that time only from the Armenian translation. 44 Not surprisingly, the original edition of 1836, only in Armenian, did not draw much attention, and it was only when G.Moesinger published a Latin translation in 1876 that the work caused considerable excitement to the scholarly world. Further early Syriac manuscripts of Ephrem, deriving from the Syrian Monastery in Egypt, were acquired by the British Museum around the middle of the century. One of the first to make use of these was G.Bickell, in his edition of the important hymn cycle, the Carmina Nisibena (1866), while others were employed by T.J. Lamy in his four-volume Sancti Ephraem Syri Hymni et Sermones (Malines, 1882–1902); both editors also provided Latin translations, thus ensuring their much wider accessibility. A number of the texts in these two editions were translated into English in a useful volume in Selections translated into English from the Hymns and Homilies of Ephraim the Syrian (1898), in the Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (II.13; Ephrem rather incongruously shares the volume with Gregory the Great). The work was edited by John Gwynn, a man who claimed to have learnt his Syriac on long train journeys between Donegal and Dublin. A completely different side to Ephrem was revealed when C.W. Mitchell’s patient decipherment of a palimpsest manuscript containing various prose refutations of heretics (notably Marcion, Bardaisan and Mani) was published in two volumes, the first in 1912, and the second, posthumously in 1921, having been completed and prepared for publication by F.C. Burkitt, Mitchell having been killed during the First J. Julian, author of the excellent A Dictionary of Hymnology (1892; revised edition, London 1915), characterized the Thesaurus as “the work of a man who greatly loved his subject, but to whose mind the instinct of accuracy was in great measure wanting”. On p. 1113 Julian lists the various English metrical versions of Ephrem’s poems used as hymns. 43 Repentance: chiefly from the Syriac of St Ephraem, and other Eastern Sources (London, 1866). There are also some included in his Meditations for every Wednesday and Friday in Lent on a Prayer of St Ephraem (London, 1859). (This well-known Greek prayer of St Ephrem has no known Syriac counterpart). 44 About two thirds of it has now turned up in Syriac; there is a recent English translation by Carmel McCarthy (1993). 42

50

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

World War. In this work one finds Ephrem referring to a number of Greek writers, such as Albinus. 45 {77} As far as Ephrem’s writings are concerned, by far the most important development of the twentieth century has been the re-edition (accompanied by German translations) of his poetry, on the basis of all the early manuscript evidence available; this was done single-handed by Dom Edmund Beck OSB, in a whole series of volumes in the Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium over the years 1955–79. The publication of these excellent editions has led to a considerable revival of interest in his works (encouraged in the English-speaking world also by Robert Murray’s many excerpts in his important Symbols of Church and Kingdom. A Study in Early Syriac Tradition, of 1975). As a result of this renewed interest, quite a large proportion of Ephrem’s Syriac poetry is now at last available in English translations to the much wider audience that it deserves. 46 *** It can be seen that St Ephrem has continued to enjoy a high standing in the western Christian tradition for at least a millennium and a half, 47 though on the basis of varying collections of texts. Has this made a difference to the picture of the man given to readers of these texts? Undoubtedly for readers in the medieval West St Ephrem was essentially a monastic saint, and this is a perception which was subsequently actively encouraged when the Greek accounts of his life, in the fifth-century Church Historians, became known during the Renaissance, and when the sixthcentury Syriac Life of Ephrem was published in the first volume of J.S. Assemani’s Bibliotheca Orientalis. In recent years the study of the early Syriac ascetic tradition, 48 of Ephrem’s surprising familiarity with Greek philosophy has recently been well brought out by U. Possekel, Evidence of Greek Philosophical Concepts in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (Leuven, 1999). 46 The fullest collection is by K. McVey, Ephrem the Syrian. Hymns (New York, 1989), in the Classics of Western Spirituality series. A small selection is given in my The Harp of the Spirit: 18 poems by St Ephrem (Studies supplementary to Sobornost; 2nd edition, London, 1983), while the small cycle of 15 poems on Paradise are translated in my St Ephrem the Syrian. Hymns on Paradise (Crestwood, 1990). For other translations, see chapter 24, below. An interesting small, and considerably earlier, collection of translations from Ephrem was published in India by Ann Anchor, Ephrem the Syrian. An Eastern Contemplative (Bangalore, 1939). (At the end is an announcement that she is the co-author, with a certain George Yesudas Martyn, of a planned volume entitled Christian Spirituality and the Eastern Church, in which the chapter on Ephrem is entitled “Hid Theology: the Way of the Spirit”). 47 At the beginning of the twentieth century this appreciation was formalized by Pope Benedict XV in his encyclical Principi apostolorum, of 5th October 1920, when he proclaimed St Ephrem a Doctor of the Church. 48 A good guide to this is S.H. Griffith, “Asceticism in the Church of Syria”, in V.L. Wimbush and R. Valantasis (eds), Asceticism (New York, 1995) 220–48. A brief orientation can also be found in my The Luminous Eye. The Spiritual World Vision of St Ephrem (2nd edition, Kalamazoo, 1992), chapter 8. 45

5. THE CHANGING FACES OF ST EPHREM AS READ IN THE WEST

51

which Ephrem {78} was a part, has pointed to the anachronistic (and sometimes tendentious) character of these accounts. 49 Accordingly, it is now generally recognized that the most reliable portrait of the man is to be extrapolated from his own writings – and here it is essential to distinguish the genuine from the many works attributed to him. In the 1950s a lively controversy on this question was conducted between Dom Edmund Beck and another renowned Syriac scholar, Arthur Vööbus, who maintained that a number of texts, claiming to be by Ephrem and portraying him as a monk, were genuine. That Beck had the better judgement in this matter is now widely accepted. It thus emerges that already within a century or two of Ephrem’s death two considerably different portraits of him had emerged: one was the historical Ephrem, the theologian-poet and deacon who was in all likelihood a representative of the distinctive form of Syrian proto-monasticism, living in the midst of the Christian community in Nisibis (until 363) and Edessa (from 363 until his death in 373), where (among other things) he established women’s choirs and took an active role in famine relief, right at the end of his life; while the other was the monk, and sometimes hermit, who lived in isolation from the local Christian community, and who belonged to the wider monastic tradition with links with both Cappadocia and Egypt. The existence of these two Ephrems, ‘Ephrem Syrus’ and ‘Ephrem Byzantinus’ as they have been called by S.H. Griffith, can also be seen in the iconographic tradition, where the monastic Ephrem is, of course, the dominant one, and can be seen today (for example) on the cover of McVey’s collection of translations (against the wishes of the translator!). A survival of another, presumably earlier, and certainly more reliable, tradition can be found in an icon in the Monastery of St Catherine, Sinai, of the Edessa Mandilion which must have been painted not long after the precious relic was transferred from Edessa to Constantinople in 944. In the lower right panel St Ephrem stands alongside St Basil (based on an unhistorical episode in the Life), dressed as a deacon. 50 It would be good if the modern iconographical tradition could revert to this image of the great saint. {79}

APPENDIX

Contents of the early Latin corpus and of Ambrosius Camuldulensis’s translation, with their correspondences in Greek and Syriac

(a) The six Latin texts that by the ninth century formed a small corpus correspond as follows to Greek texts (for convenience, these are given in the sequence of CPG); where the titles in the Latin corpus differ these are given in brackets:

Two important studies are by S.H. Griffith, “Images of Ephrem: the Syrian Holy Man and his Church”, Traditio 45 (1989/90) 7–33, and J.P. Amar, “Byzantine ascetic monachism and Greek bias in the Vita tradition of Ephrem the Syrian”, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 58 (1992) 123–56. 50 Illustrated in K.A. Manafis, Sinai. The Treasures of the Monastery of Saint Catherine (Athens, 1990), p. 145. 49

52

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

CPG 3909 sermo asceticus (de compunctione cordis I). The Greek corresponds in different places to different Syriac texts, none of which are certainly by Ephrem. CPG 3915 de paenitentia. No Syriac text of this is known. CPG 3920 in secundum adventum Domini (de luctaminibus/de luctamine spirituali). The opening of the Latin version has some of CPG 4002 de virginitate, and ends with the ending of CPG 3935(2). No Syriac text is known. CPG 3925(2) de beatitudine animae. No Syriac text is known. CPG 3940 de iudicio et compunctione (de die iudicii). No Syriac text is known. CPG 3968 catechesis ad monachos (de compuntione cordis II). No Syriac text is known. The other main texts available in an early Latin translation are: CPG 3937 vita Abrahamii et neptis eius Mariae. Also known in Syriac, but dating from shortly after Ephrem’s time. CPG 3938 in pulcherrimum Ioseph. There seems to be no direct link with any of the various Syriac poems on Joseph (one of which is probably wrongly attributed to Ephrem). CPG 4082 in Ionam prophetam et de paenitentia Ninivitarum. The Syriac original of this is almost certainly by Ephrem. (b) The 19 texts translated by Ambrogio Traversari correspond to CPG as follows (Ambrogio’s chapter numbers and titles are given; those marked with an asterisk are already found (at least in part) in the earlier Latin translations): CPG 3909* = ch. 4, de vita et exercitatione monastica CPG 3915* = ch. 9, de conversione et paenitentia CPG 3916 = ch. 13, de compunctione CPG 3919 = ch. 11, de timore Dei CPG 3920* = ch. 10, de secundo Domini adventu CPG 3921 = ch. 7, ad monachos…de sanctis patribus CPG 3925 = ch. 1, de paenitentia CPG 3928 = ch. 12, de angustia qua premitur anima {80} CPG 3933 = ch. 5, quod non oportet ridere CPG 3938* = ch. 19, de laudibus sancti Ioseph CPG 3940* = ch. 2, de iudicio et resurrectione et charitate et compunctione CPG 3946 = ch. 16, de antichristo CPG 4002(*) = ch. 17, de virginitate CPG 4014 = ch. 3, de iudicio et resurrectione CPG 4020 = ch. 8, de armatura monachi CPG 4025 = ch. 14, de passione Domini CPG 4026 = ch. 18, de laudibus martyrum CPG 4054 = ch. 15, Ad eos qui filii naturam scrutari volunt CPG 4059 = ch. 6, ad animam negligentem.

Of these, corresponding Syriac texts have only been identified for CPG 3909, 3946 (requires verification), 4025 (attributed in Syriac to John Chrysostom), and 4054; details concerning these can be found in CPG.

6

THE ARMENIAN LIFE OF ST EPHREM AND ITS SYRIAC SOURCE * It was only in the sixth century, at least a century and a half after the saint’s death in 373, that a Life of Ephrem, the great poet and theologian, was composed in Syriac. Needless to say, with the passing of time many details of his biography had been forgotten, and not surprisingly the author of the Life drew on sources that were already available, several of which are in Greek. It is evident that one of the author’s aims was to present Ephrem in accordance with the expectations of the time; thus Ephrem the deacon (as we know from Jerome, writing in 392) has been anachronistically transformed into Ephrem the monk, and since a sixth-century reader would expect him to have had some connection with some of his famous contemporaries, the author has neatly identified an anonymous ‘Syrian’ who features twice in works by Basil of Caesarea and in the Life of Bishoi (Bisoes) of Egypt as Ephrem; accordingly, the saint is described as having visited both St Basil in Cappadocia and St Bishoi in Egypt. Although historically untrue, there happens to be some symbolic truth in the fiction, for Ephrem’s theology has much in common with that of the Cappadocians (in fact, more with Gregory of Nyssa’s than with Basil’s), and the indigenous Syriac ascetic life of the bnay qyama, ‘members of the covenant’, which he probably adopted, was the nearest equivalent to the Egyptian monastic tradition which only reached east of the Euphrates after Ephrem’s death. 1 As a result of the ‘updating’ of Ephrem by his sixth-century biographer, we are presented with two different portrayals of the man, one derived from a few scattered autobiographical hints in his own work, earlier sources, and the verse homily on him by Jacob of Serugh (d. 521), and {68} the other provided by the author of the Life and related works. 2 These two different literary portrayals of the saint happen Originally published in C. Esche-Ramshorn (ed.), Reflections on Armenia and the Christian Orient: Studies in Honour of Vrej Nersessian (Yerevan: Ankynacar, 2017), 119–130. 1 For the ‘proto-monastic’ tradition to which Ephrem belonged, see my The Luminous Eye: the Spiritual World Vision of St Ephrem, Kalamazoo, 1992, chapter 8. 2 The contrast is well brought out by B. Outtier, “S.Éphrem d’après ses biographes et ses oeuvres”, Parole de l’Orient 4 (1973), 11–33, S.H. Griffith, “Images of Ephrem. The Syrian *

53

54

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

to be neatly reflected in the iconographic tradition as well, for he variously portrayed, either as a deacon, in conformity with the more historical portrait, or as a monk, following the Life. Lengthy excerpts from the Syriac Life of Ephrem were first published by J.S. Assemani in 1719 in the first volume of his Bibliotheca Orientalis, 3 but it was not until 1743 that the full text was published by P. Benedictus and S.E. Assemani. 4 In both cases the text was based on Vatican Syr. 117 (henceforth V) , dated to the twelfth or thirteenth century; 5 this was among the manuscripts which had been acquired from the (by then) Coptic Orthodox monastery known as Deir al-Surian, between Cairo and Alexandria. A second manuscript, with a different recension of the Life, was published nearly a century and a half later, in 1886, by T.J. Lamy, 6 based on Paris syr. 243 (henceforth P), of the thirteenth century. A greatly improved edition of the two manuscripts, also making use of some further manuscripts, was recently published, with an English translation, by J.P. Amar. 7 Among the other manuscripts employed, and sometimes cited, by Amar are a twelfth-century manuscript in the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate in Damascus (ms 12/17; henceforth D) and a much later London manuscript (British Library, Or. 9384; henceforth L), copied in 1892 specifically for E.A.W. Budge. Each of these represents a different recension of the text. For our present purpose it is the Paris and Damascus manuscripts that are of prime importance. It has usually been recognised that of the two manuscripts P and V, it is P that has an earlier form of text, while L is self-confessedly an abbreviation, although at the same time it also contains material not found in P and V. According to Amar, D normally follows P, and so in his edition he does not give its text, except in sections where it presents a different text from that of P; this {69} applies to the Title and Holy Man and his Church”, Traditio 45 (1989/90), 7–33, and by J.P. Amar, “Byzantine ascetic monachism and Greek bias in the Vita tradition of Ephrem the Syrian”, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 58 (1992), 123–156; cf. also my “St Ephrem in the eyes of the later liturgical tradition”, Hugoye. Journal of Syriac Studies 2 (1999), 5–25, and “In search of St Ephrem,” in Saint Ephrem. Un poète pour notre temps (Patrimoine syriaque, Actes du Colloque XI; Alep 2006), Antélias, 2007, 11–25; reprinted in Khristianskij Vostok 6 (XII) (2013), 13–25 = chapter 22 below and 4 above. 3 J.S. Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana, I, Rome, 1719, 26–55. 4 P. Benedictus and S.E. Assemani, Sancti Patris Nostri Ephraem Syri Opera Omnia, III, Rome, 1743, xxiii–lxiii. 5 For this dating see, for example, A. Vööbus, Die handschriftliche Überlieferung der MemreDichtung des Ja‘qob von Serug, I (CSCO 344, Subsidia 39), Leuven, 1973, 152; mysteriously, Amar, The Syriac Vita Tradition of Ephrem the Syrian (CSCO 629; 2001), vi, states ‘dated to 1100 AD’, which is incorrect: there is no date of copying given in the manuscript. 6 T.J. Lamy, Sancti Ephraem Syri hymni et sermones, II, Malines, 1886, 3–89. 7 J.P. Amar, The Syriac Vita Tradition of Ephrem the Syrian (CSCO 629–630; Scriptores Syri 242–3), Leuven, 2011; this was based on his doctoral thesis of 1988 (Catholic University of America, Washington DC).

6. THE ARMENIAN LIFE OF ST EPHREM AND ITS SYRIAC SOURCE

55

Prooimion, and chapters 30B, 31A, 38*, and 42C; in chapters 30 and 31 D provides extended quotations from Ephrem’s writings, whereas they are curtailed in P. Amar also makes mention of a very damaged fragment of the Life in one of the Syriac fragments from the ‘New Finds’ at St Catherine’s Monastery, Mount Sinai (Syr. Sparagma 52; henceforth S), datable to the 10th century, 8 and so this is in fact the oldest witness to the Life. Although very fragmentary, its text is clearly very close to that of D in those sections where D has a longer text than P. Whether the text of S and D has been expanded, or that of P (and V) been curtailed, are questions that need answering, but an important first step will be to investigate the witness of the Armenian and Georgian translations of the Life. Fortunately both translations have received critical editions in the Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. 9 The Armenian translation, made directly from Syriac, was made in 1101, commissioned by the Catholicos Grigor II, ‘the Lover of Martyrs’, and is preserved in three dated manuscripts of the thirteenth century, a single folio dated to the twelfth century, and a number of later manuscripts. Petrossian’s edition is based on ten manuscripts all dating from the thirteenth or fourteenth century. Outtier, in the Introduction to his translation, has already noted that the Armenian translation represents ‘par rapport aux deux recensions syriaques [P and V] de la Vie d’Éphrem, une troisème recension’, and in occasional footnotes he refers to ‘le ms. de Damas’, that is, Amar’s D. Garitte published the Georgian translation on the basis of British Library, Add. 11,281, of the early eleventh century, copied at the Monastery of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem. He notes that the translation was evidently made direct from Syriac, and that it conforms most closely with the Paris manuscript, although it has certain elements absent from P (and V). 10 *** The Syriac Life of Ephrem contains the following sections in Amar’s edition, based on P and V; in brackets some main sources, or starting points, are given: 1 2 3 4

His birth and upbringing. His expulsion from home by his pagan father. His meeting with Jacob, bishop of Nisibis [Ephrem, Carmina Nisibena 14]. {70} His alleged child [cf P. Canart, in Analecta Bollandiana 84 (1966), 309–33].

S. Brock, Catalogue of Syriac Fragments (New Finds) in the Library of the Monastery of Saint Catherine, Mount Sinai, Athens, 1995, 52–4, 252–4; photographs are provided of both recto and verso of all the fragments. 9 Armenian: L. Ter-Petrossian (ed.) and B. Outtier (tr.), Textes arméniens relatifs à s. Éphrem (CSCO 473–4, Scriptores Armeniaci 15–16), Leuven, 1985. Georgian: G. Garitte, Vies géorgiennes de s. Syméon stylite l’ancien et de s.Éphrem (CSCO 172–3, Scriptores Iberici 8–9), Leuven, 1957. 10 He specifies sections 20a, 30b and 43–45 (CSCO 172, x; 173, ii). 8

56 5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD The Council of Nicaea [Life of Jacob of Nisibis; 11 Theodoret, Eccl.Hist. I.7]. The siege of Nisibis by the Persians [Life of Jacob; Ephrem, C. Nisibena 1; Theodoret, Eccl. Hist. II.30]. The death of Jacob, bishop of Nisibis [Life of Jacob]. The emperors Constans and Julian. Ephrem leaves Nisibis. His arrival at Edessa. His encounter with a woman by the river Daisan [Sozomen, Eccl.Hist. III.16]. His work in the bath house. He joins the monks on the mountain of Edessa. A monk’s vision of an angel with a scroll [Apophthegmata, Palladius, Lausiac History 40a (only in Syriac tr.)]. Ephrem’s dream as a child of a vine [Apophthegmata, Palladius, Lausiac History 40c (only in Syriac tr.); Testament of Ephrem]. His Commentary on Genesis [Ephrem, Commentary on Genesis]. His fame increases. He is stoned by pagans and unbelievers. His disciples [Testament of Ephrem; Sozomen, Eccl.Hist. III.16]. He hears of Basil, bishop of Caesarea [Ps. Amphilochius; Ps. Gregory of Nyssa]. 12 He embarks for Egypt. 13 His arrival in Egypt; his meeting with Bishoi (only in V) [Life of Bishoi]. 14 His diet and appearance. His eight years in Egypt and refutation of heretics. His departure by sea for Cappadocia and his meeting with Basil; Basil ordains him deacon [Ps. Amphilochius]. {71} The question of the wording of the doxology [Basil, On the Holy Spirit, XXIX.74; 15 Ps. Amphilochius].

Ed. P. Bedjan, Acta Martyrum et Sanctorum IV, Paris/Leipzig, 1894, 263–73; this is a translation of Theodoret, Historia religiosa 1. Cf. P. Peeters, « La légende de s.Jacques de Nisibe », Analecta Bollandiana 38 (1920), 285–373. 12 Ps Amphilochius, Life of Basil (Clavis Patrum Graecorum [=CPG] 3253; Ps. Gregory of Nyssa, Encomium on Ephrem (CPG 3193); a quotation from Coricius in the latter means that the work must date from at least the 6th century: see A. Corcella, “L’uso di Coricio in Pseudo-Gregorio di Nissa In sanctum Ephraim”, Analecta Bollandiana 124 (2006), 241–51. Ps. Gregory is the source of the Metaphrastic Life in Patrologia Graeca 114, cols 1251–68. The episode of Ephrem’s supposed visit to Basil and its sources was studied by O. Rousseau, “La rencontre de s. Éphrem et de s. Basile“, L’Orient Syrien 2 (1957), 261–84, and 3 (1958), 73– 90. 13 For this episode, see H.J. Polotsky, “Ephraems Reise nach Ägypten”, Orientalia 2 (1933), 269–74. 14 See note 17 below. 15 Basil cites the opinion of a ‘Mesopotamian’, who was then identified as Ephrem. 11

6. THE ARMENIAN LIFE OF ST EPHREM AND ITS SYRIAC SOURCE

57

27

The interpretation of Genesis 1:2 [Basil, On the Hexaemeron, II.6; 16 Ps. Amphilochius]. 28 Ephrem’s return. 29 An episode at Samosata. 30 He discovers nine heresies on his return to Edessa [Ephrem, c. Haereses; Carmina Nisibena 51:2–4]. 31 He write hymns to rival those of Bardaisan and Harmonius [Ephrem, c. Haereses 53; Sozomen, Eccl. Hist. III.16; Theodoret, Eccl.Hist. IV.29]. 32 He refutes Bardaisan [Ephrem, Prose Refutations; c. Haereses 56]. 33 He heals a paralytic. 34 Basil wishes to consecrate him as a bishop, but he avoids this [Ps. Amphilochius; Sozomen, Eccl.Hist., III.16]. 35 Ephrem’s writings. 36 [not in V] An invasion of the Huns [Chronicle of Edessa, AD 395]. 37 Valens’/Julian’s intended persecution [Socrates, Eccl. Hist. IV.18]. 38 Ephrem’s poem on the faith of the people of Edessa. 38* [only in D, Arm, Geo] Ephrem’s writings on Abraham of Qidun [Ephrem (attr.), Hymns on Abraham Qidunaya 15:3–4; Life of Abraham Qidunaya]. 39 The sins of a woman of Caesarea are miraculously wiped out [Ps. Ampmhilochius]. 40 The death of Basil. 41 Famine in Edessa [Palladius, Lausiac History 40b; Sozomen, Eccl. Hist., III.16]. 42 The death of Ephem.

*** As Outtier already realised, the Armenian reflects a Syriac text tradition similar to that of D where D goes against P, most notably in 38*, entirely absent from P and V. These passages where D goes its own way happen to be the only places where Amar provides the text of D, on the grounds that elsewhere it is very close to P. Accordingly the following investigation, which it should be stressed is only very preliminary in character, will be largely restricted to the sections where Amar prints the text of D, namely chapters 30–33, 38*, 42.

{72} 30 For the opening section of 30 (Amar’s 30A) D is not cited and so can be assumed to be virtually identical with P; strong confirmation of this is provided by the fragmentary S, whose (b) recto supports P wherever it is available. The next section (30B) largely consists of a quotation form Ephrem’s Carmina Nisibena 51: whereas P has abbreviated and adapted the quotation, D (supported by S at the beginning) provides verses 2–4 of Ephrem’s poem complete. In the Armenian translation the beginning and end of the section correspond fairly closely to D, but instead of a

Commenting on Gen. 1:2 Basil cites with approval the opinion of a ‘Syrian’, who was then identified as Ephrem; the true identity of the anonymous Syrian turns out to be Eusebius of Emesa: see L. van Rompay, “L’informateur syrien de Basile de Césarée”, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 58 (1992), 245–51. 16

58

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

quotation of Ephrem’s poem, the Armenian translator provides a longer description of Bardaisan’s ideas. By contrast, the Georgian retains a quotation, but the content has been adapted.

31 After a narrative opening describing how Ephrem refuted various heresies (the Armenian adds the specification that this was ‘from the holy Scriptures’), D provides another quotation from Ephrem’s works, this time the Hymns against Heresies (53:5–6); this is strongly supported by the fragmentary S (c) recto. Once again P abbreviates the quotation drastically, effectively quoting only the opening words. The Armenian paraphrases the content of the two verses and adds (anachronistically!) that Ephrem wrote hymns according to the eight modes. The Georgian evidently has a lacuna at this point. The chapter goes on to tell how Ephrem taught the ‘Daughters of the Covenant’, with clear allusions to a passage in Jacob of Serugh’s panegyric on Ephrem: 17 whereas P alludes only to the beginning of couplet 98, D has slightly adapted the following three couplets. The Armenian drops these allusions but adds in explanation that Ephrem taught these ‘pure virgins’ because Bardaisan had taught things contrary to the truth to ‘pretence virgins and impure women’.

32 This chapter again makes extensive use of verse sources, first an adaptation of Ephrem’s refutation of Bardaisan, in the 7+7 syllable metre, beginning ‘Our hope is not in the Seven (sc. Planets) which Bardaisan acknowledges’. Though there is material that is common to D, P and V in the course of the quotation, the phrasing is considerably different; D’s version has the support of the fragmentary S (d) verso at the end of the quotation. In D alone there follows another quotation, this time (once again) from Ephrem’s Hymns against Heresies (56:8–11); this has the support of the fragmentary S (e) recto. 18 The Armenian too supports D, and in particular it contains the four verses from Hymn 56 against the Heresies. The Georgian likewise has the fuller text of D with the second quotation, although it omits verse 9 (which in fact is abbreviated in D and Arm).

33 In the short narrative that forms chapter 33 D (which again has the support at one point {73} of S) only diverges from P in a small number of details, two being more noticeable. At the opening mention is made in D of the ‘signs’ that Ephrem performed; this features in the Georgian, but not in the Armenian. Secondly, in P and V (but not in D) the paralytic asked if he wants to be healed; the question to him is also found in both the Armenian and Georgian, which thus for once go against D. Ed. J. Amar, A Metrical Homily on Holy Mar Ephrem by Mar Jacob of Sarug (Patrologia Orientalis 47:1), Turnhout, 1995. 18 In passing it is worth noting two variants in c.Haer. 56:10: instead of Beck’s nezdakkun ‘will be vanquished’, D has la nakkun ‘will not harm’ and S la nezkun ‘will not vanquish’. 17

6. THE ARMENIAN LIFE OF ST EPHREM AND ITS SYRIAC SOURCE

59

38* No chapter concerning Abraham of Qidun is to be found in P or V, and it is only D which provides one; both the Armenian and the Georgian, however, support its presence. Their texts correspond fairly closely with that of D, though there are some differences. Thus both the Armenian and the Georgian add the information that Abraham distributed his possessions to the poor, though they do so at different points in the narrative: in the Armenian this is stated at the beginning, but in the Georgian he sells (rather than distributes) his goods in order to build the church in the village of Qidun. At the end of the chapter D quotes from the Hymns on Abraham of Qidun (15:3–4), attributed to Ephrem; in the Armenian the quotation is slightly adapted, while it is not represented at all in the Georgian. Curiously, the Georgian states that Abraham was sent by ‘the catholicos’ to convert the villagers of Qidun from paganism. The evidence of chapters 30–32 and 38* shows very clearly that the Syriac text underlying both the Armenian and the Georgian translations was very similar to that in D. This makes it all the more a desideratum that a full edition of D be produced, even though, according to Amar, it basically conforms with the text of P elsewhere. In what follows, attention is drawn to just a selection of places where the witness of the Armenian translation is of interest. 1 The god whom Ephrem’s father is said to have served is given as Ibriziel in the Armenian, which corresponds best with P’s Abizel (V has Abnil, and the Georgian identifies him as Apollo).

4 The Armenian has added a second quotation from Matthew (5:11–12), in addition to Mt. 18:6.

9 Ephrem’s baptism took place when he was 18 years old according to P (likewise the Georgian), but in V it is given as 28. By contrast, the Armenian translator, living at a time when infant baptism was the norm, states that he was baptised as an infant. The name of place where this took place is best preserved in D, Beth ‘Arabaya (as Outtier points out in a note); P has corrupted this to Garbaya (‘the north’), while the Armenian has a transposition, Betabrea, and the Georgian 19 takes the name to be Arabia (V omits the name of the location).

14 In a vision a hermit is shown a scroll by an angel, and the angel asks him to whom should it be given. The hermit’s reply is Origenes (corrupted to ’Iganos/Aganos in P and the {74} Armenian). Since Origen was a persona non grata to most later writers, the Georgian alters to ‘either Paul the hermit or Poemen’. 18

The Armenian has expanded the words of the hermit concerning Ephrem.

21 When the boat in which Ephrem was travelling to Egypt was in danger of sinking, the Armenian alone compares Ephrem’s silent prayer before he stilled the storm

19

The end of chapter 8 is considerably expanded in the Georgian.

60

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

to that of Moses when pursued by the Egyptians. 20 In the next chapter on Ephrem’s time in Egypt, in V alone it is said that Ephrem visited Bishoi (Pisoes), based on the identification of an anonymous ‘Syrian’ mentioned in the Life of Bishoi as Ephrem; 21 the tradition lives on at the now Coptic monastery of Deir al-Surian in the Nitrian Desert, where the visitor will be shown a flourishing tree, said to have sprung from Ephrem’s staff.

25 According to P Ephrem arrives in Caesarea (on his visit to Basil) on ‘the feast of Epiphany … on which there is a commemoration of the holy martyr Mamas’. V is vaguer with ‘in the days of Christ’s holy Epiphany’ and no mention is made of Mamas; by contrast L has Ephrem reaching Caesarea ‘on the commemoration of St Mamas the martyr; this occurs on New Sunday’. While the Georgian also has ‘Epiphany’, but without mention of the martyr, the Armenian alters the date: he arrives on ‘the day of the feast of the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, New Sunday, when one celebrates the feast of St Mamas’. ‘New Sunday’ happens also to have the support of the late Syriac manuscript L, and so it is clearly not the invention of the Armenian translator. The combination of ‘on the day of the Feast of the Resurrection’ and ‘New Sunday’ is very puzzling: perhaps originally ‘in the days (i.e. liturgical period) of the Resurrection was intended. The association with the commemoration of St Mamas is equally puzzling, since neither Epiphany nor Resurrection fit any known calendar, but one Syriac calendar does indeed provide New Sunday. 22 Other Syriac calendars provide a variety of different dates, 23 one of which is 2nd September, 24 the date in the Armenian Synaxary (23rd Navasard), as well as in the Byzantine calendar. 25 {75} The sequence of chapters 25 to 29 varies in the different witnesses. Amar’s edition follows the order of chapters in P (also found in the Georgian), but V, fol-

Compare the addition, confined to the Armenian, of a reference to Stephen, the protomartyr, in chapter 41. 21 This is dramatically shown by the addition of Ephrem’s name in the margin of the Life of Bishoi in Deir al-Surian Syriac manuscript no. 30: see S.P. Brock and L. van Rompay, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts and Fragments in the Library of Deir al-Surian, Wadi al-Natrun (Orientalia Lovanensia Periodica 247), Leuven, 2014, 225. 22 British Library, Add. 14,519; see F. Nau, Un Martyrologe et douze ménologues syriaques (Patrologia Orientalis 10), Paris, 1912, 50. 23 3rd May, 29th May, 10th August, and 2nd September: Nau, Un Martyrologe, 41 55, 77, 84, 124. 24 British Library, Add. 17,232; Nau, Un Martyrologe, 124. 25 G. Bayan, M. de Saxe (eds), Le Synaxaire arménien de Ter Israel, 1. Mois de Navasard (Patrologia Orientalis 5), Paris, 1909), 475–8; H. Delehaye, Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae, Bruxelles, 1902, cols 5–7. The Greek Lives have been edited by A. Berger, “Die alten Viten des heiligen Mamas von Kaisareia”, Analecta Bollandiana 120 (2002), 241–310, and the Syriac in Bedjan, Acta Martyrum et Sanctorum, VI, 431–58; both feature in A. Berger and H. Younansardaroud, Die griechische Vita des heiligen Mamas von Kaisareia und ihre syrischen Versionen, Aachen, 2003. 20

6. THE ARMENIAN LIFE OF ST EPHREM AND ITS SYRIAC SOURCE

61

lowed by the Armenian, has the sequence 25 28 26 27 29. The agreement of the Armenian with V is occasionally found elsewhere, though usually confined to smaller matters: in 34 according to V Ephrem knew ‘in the spirit’ that Basil had sent emissaries intending to consecrate him as a bishop, but nothing is said of this in P; both the Armenian and the Georgian support V in having the addition. They likewise support V against P in 35 in adding the name of Habbib to those of the Edessene martyrs Shmona and Gurya; here, however, they do not take advantage of the similarity of names and add, with V, a reference to the Maccabaean martyr, Shmuni, on whom there indeed survives a poem attributed to Ephrem. 26

36 This short chapter, absent from V and L, anachronistically tells how the Huns came to Edessa during Ephrem’s lifetime. Its presence in P is supported by both the Armenian and the Georgian versions (the latter, however, simply identifies the invaders as ‘barbarians’).

38 The chapter largely consists of a poem, attributed to Ephrem, in the form of a eulogy of Edessa and its people in the face of persecution. Surprisingly, though the content is very similar, the texts in P and V are not the same. The slightly expanded Armenian translation supports P against V, but near the end it has two significant additions: first, in connection with Christ’s blessing of Edessa, is the statement that this was especially ‘par l’image qui l’a précédé’, a reference to the famous Edessene portrait of Christ which over the course of time underwent various transformations: absent from Eusebius’ account of the conversion of Edessa, 27 the portrait first appears in the early fifth-century work, The Teaching of Addai, where king Abgar has his emissary Hannan paint a portrait of Christ; 28 in due course this becomes an icon ‘not painted by hands’ (thus the historian Evagrius at the end of the sixth century), 29 and eventually the story becomes conflated with the Veronica legend, and it turns into a cloth with the imprint of Christ’s face (the mandylion taken to Constantinople in 944, splendidly portrayed on a tenth-century icon in the Monastery of St Catherine on Mount Sinai). 30 Edited by E. Beck in his Nachträge zu Ephraem Syrus (CSCO 363–4, Scr. Syri 159–60), Leuven, 1975, 15–19. The poem is attributed to Jacob of Serugh in Add. 14520. 27 Eusebius, Church History, I.13. 28 G. Phillips, The Doctrine of Addai, the Apostle, London, 1876, 5; G. Howard, The Teaching of Addai, Chico CA, 1981, 8–11. 29 Evagrius, Eccl.Hist., IV.27; English translation in M. Whitby, The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus, Liverpool, 2000, 226. 30 Illustrated, for example, in S.P. Brock and D.G.K. Taylor, The Hidden Pearl, vol. 2: The Heirs of the Ancient Aramaic Heritage, Rome, 2001, 49. For the changing fate of the Edessa portrait of Christ, see A. Nicoletti, From the Mandylion of Edessa to the Shroud of Turin: the metamorphosis and manipulation of a legend, Leiden, 2014; A.N. Palmer, “Edessan images of Christ, with an appendix on the Life of Daniel of Aghlosh”, in K. Dietz, C. Hannick, C. Lutzka and E. Maier (eds), Das Christusbild. Zu Herkunft und Entwicklung in Ost und West (Das Östliche 26

62

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

The second addition at the end of chapter 38 to be found, this time in both the Armenian and the Georgian translations, is the statement that Ephrem also wrote a work in which he compared (or rather contrasted) Edessa with Samaria. Though absent from P and V, this information is also provided in D. 31 {76}

42 No date for Ephrem’s death is given in either P or the Armenian; by contrast V states it was on June 15th while the Georgian gives February 1st; other sources give other dates, the most likely one being June 9th. Against P, but in common with V, the Armenian has a reference here to the Testament of Ephrem (a work also translated into Armenian, but from Greek). 32 The Georgian adds three brief chapters, on his writings ‘in Greek and Syriac’, some sayings, and a duplicate form of the vision of chapter 15 (for this, compare L which likewise mentions this vision here). *** It is clear on the basis of this preliminary investigation that both the Armenian and the Georgian translations of the Syriac Life of Ephrem turn out to be witnesses of considerable interest for the evidently complex text history of the work. Overwhelmingly they support D in those chapters where that manuscript diverges considerably from P, while elsewhere both versions generally follow P (and presumably D as well). At the same time there are some sporadic cases, usually of no great significance, where one or other version, or both, supports V against P. These findings make it all the more desirable that the text of D be made available in full.

PERSONAL NOTE FROM THE AUTHOR:

It is a particular pleasure to offer this small contribution in honour of the Revd Dr Vrej Nersessian who for many years also curated the British Library’s superb collection of Syriac manuscripts, among which there happen to be two manuscripts (albeit both late) of the Life of Ephrem.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Amar, J.P., “Byzantine ascetic monachism and Greek bias in the Vita tradition of Ephrem the Syrian”, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 58 (1992), 123–156. ———, A Metrical Homily on Holy Mar Ephrem by Mar Jacob of Sarug (Patrologia Orientalis 47:1), Turnhout, 1995. ———, The Syriac Vita Tradition of Ephrem the Syrian (CSCO 629–630, Scriptores Syri 242–3), Leuven, 2011. {77}

Christentum, Neue Folge, Band 62; 2016), 222–276; S.P. Brock, “Transformations of the Edessa Portrait of Christ”, Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies 18:1 (2004), 46–56. 31 This is noted by Amar in his translation (The Syriac Vita, 96, note 5). No such poem survives (the same applies to the eulogy of Edessa quoted earlier in chapter 38). 32 Edited by Petrossian and translated by Outtier in their Textes arméniens relatifs à s. Éphrem, 53–83 (text), 27–43 (translation).

6. THE ARMENIAN LIFE OF ST EPHREM AND ITS SYRIAC SOURCE

63

Assemani, J.S. Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana, I, Rome, 1719. Bayan, G.. and M. de Saxe (eds), Le Synaxaire arménien de Ter Israel, 1. Mois de Navasard (Patrologia Orientalis 5), Paris, 1909). E. Beck in his Nachträge zu Ephraem Syrus (CSCO 363–4, Scriptores Syri 159–60), Leuven, 1975. Bedjan, P., Acta Martyrum et Sanctorum, I–VII, Paris/Leipzig, 1890–1897. P. Benedictus and S.E. Assemani, Sancti Patris Nostri Ephraem Syri Opera Omnia, III, Rome, 1743. Berger, A., “Die alten Viten des heiligen Mamas von Kaisareia”, Analecta Bollandiana 120 (2002), 241–310. Berger, A. and H. Younansardaroud, Die griechische Vita des heiligen Mamas von Kaisareia und ihre syrischen Versionen, Aachen, 2003. Brock, S.P., The Luminous Eye: the Spiritual World Vision of St Ephrem, Kalamazoo, 1992. ———, Catalogue of Syriac Fragments (New Finds) in the Library of the Monastery of Saint Catherine, Mount Sinai, Athens, 1995. ———, “St Ephrem in the eyes of the later liturgical tradition”, Hugoye. Journal of Syriac Studies 2 (1999), 5–25. ———, “Transformations of the Edessa Portrait of Christ”, Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies 18:1 (2004), 46–56. ———, “In search of St Ephrem,” in Saint Ephrem. Un poète pour notre temps (Patrimoine syriaque, Actes du Colloque XI; Alep 2006), Antélias, 2007, 11–25; reprinted in Khristianskij Vostok 6 (XII) (2013), 13–25. Brock, S.P. and D.G.K. Taylor, The Hidden Pearl, vol. 2: The Heirs of the Ancient Aramaic Heritage, Rome, 2001. Brock, S.P. and L. van Rompay, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts and Fragments in the Library of Deir al-Surian, Wadi al-Natrun (Orientalia Lovanensia Periodica 247), Leuven, 2014. Corcella, A., “L’uso di Coricio in Pseudo-Gregorio di Nissa In sanctum Ephraim”, Analecta Bollandiana 124 (2006), 241–51. {78} Delehaye, H., Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae, Bruxelles, 1902. Garitte, G., Vies géorgiennes de s. Syméon stylite l’ancien et de s. Éphrem (CSCO 172–3, Scriptores Iberici 8–9), Leuven, 1957. Griffith, S.H., “Images of Ephrem. The Syrian Holy Man and his Church”, Traditio 45 (1989/90), 7–33. Howard, G., The Teaching of Addai, Chico CA, 1981. Lamy, T.J., Sancti Ephraem Syri hymni et sermones, II, Malines, 1886, Nau, F., Un Martyrologe et douze ménologues syriaques (Patrologia Orientalis 10), Paris, 1912. Nicoletti, A., From the Mandylion of Edessa to the Shroud of Turin: the metamorphosis and manipulation of a legend, Leiden, 2014.

64

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

Outtier, B., “S.Éphrem d’après ses biographes et ses oeuvres”, Parole de l’Orient 4 (1973), 11–33. Palmer, A.N., “Edessan images of Christ, with an appendix on the Life of Daniel of Aghlosh”, in K. Dietz, C. Hannick, C. Lutzka and E. Maier (eds), Das Christusbild. Zu Herkunft und Entwicklung in Ost und West (Das Östliche Christentum, Neue Folge, Band 62; 2016), 222–276. Peeters, P., “La légende de s.Jacques de Nisibe”, Analecta Bollandiana 38 (1920), 285– 373. Phillips, G., The Doctrine of Addai, the Apostle, London, 1876. Polotsky, H.J., “Ephraems Reise nach Ägypten”, Orientalia 2 (1933), 269–74. Rousseau, O., “La rencontre de s. Éphrem et de s. Basile“, L’Orient Syrien 2 (1957), 261–84, and 3 (1958), 73–90. Ter-Petrossian, L. (ed.) and B. Outtier (tr.), Textes arméniens relatifs à s. Éphrem (CSCO 473–4, Scriptores Armeniaci 15–16), Leuven, 1985. van Rompay, L., “L’informateur syrien de Basile de Césarée”, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 58 (1992), 245–51. Vööbus, A., Die handschriftliche Überlieferung der Memre-Dichtung des Ja‘qob von Serug, I (CSCO 344, Subsidia 39), Leuven, 1973. Whitby, M., The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus, Liverpool, 2000.

7

ST EPHREM, SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD * Who will not give thanks to the Hidden One, most hidden of all, who came to manifest revelation, most manifest of all! (Faith 19:7)

St Ephrem can be said to be a poet of paradox, and one of his recurrent paradoxes is of the Hidden God who came out into the open and was revealed. Revealed, yet Hidden: this applies to the Scriptures as well as to Christ. It could also be applied to St Ephrem himself: he is revealed to us by means of his sixth-century biography, but nevertheless he remains hidden as far as his actual life is concerned, for the aim of sixth-century biographer was to present St Ephrem to his readers, as it were, as their contemporary: thus his portrait in the biography is updated to fit the expectations of sixth-century readers. In two aspects in particular this is positively misleading from a more historical perspective: thus he is portrayed as a monk, and he is described as having visited both St Basil and St Bishoi (Pisoes). While these two features of the biography as definitely historically untrue, for we know that Ephrem, living east of the Euphrates during the second and third quarters of the fourth century, pre-dated monasticism in the form that we know it, and neither of his travels has any historical basis, for they both rest on the incorrect identification of an anonymous Syrian as St Ephrem. Yet, on a symbolical level, both pieces of information in the biography reflect a deeper truth: although Ephrem was definitely not a monk, he was very probably a representative of the distinctive Syriac proto-monastic tradition of the bnay qyama, ‘members of the covenant’, who evidently made some sort of ascetic vow (described as a ‘covenant’ with Christ), and became ihidaye, single-minded imitations of Christ the Ihidaya, the Syriac term that translates Greek monogenes in John 1:18. Similarly, although Ephrem never visited either St Basil or St Bishoi, it is nevertheless true that his teaching was completely in harmony at a profound level with that of his better known contemporaries in both Cappadocia and Egypt. It is interesting to note in passing that the paradox of the hidden historical life of St Ephrem Originally published in S. Chialà, L. Cremaschi, and A. Mainardi (eds), La Parola di Dio nella vita spirituale (Monastero di Bose, 2012), pp. 149–67; English text in Come to the Father: Journal of the Community of the Servants of the Will of God 24 (2012), 9–19. *

67

68

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

and of his life as revealed in the biography is to some extent reflected in the iconographical tradition, where usually St Ephrem is portrayed as a monk, reflecting the portrait of him in the biography, but occasionally he is depicted as a deacon, which seems to reflect the historical reality of his actual life. In this paper, however, our concern is with the ways in which Ephrem describes the paradox of the Hidden and the Revealed in the case of the biblical text, and how one needs to pass from the outer revealed form of the text to its hidden interior meaning and sense. Ephrem’s starting point lies in the question of how can humanity have any knowledge of God. seeing that between creation and God there lies a ‘chasm’, which humanity is completely unable to cross; this means that if humanity is to acquire any knowledge at all about God, God must reveal something of his hiddenness and make this available to humanity. As Ephrem puts it: If God had not wished to interpret Himself to us there would not have been anything in creation capable of saying anything about Him at all. (On Faith 44:7)

Accordingly, any human knowledge of God comes about as a result of God’s selfrevelation, which takes place in two different spheres, in Nature and in the Book, which Ephrem calls God’s two ‘witnesses’, that is, the natural world around us, and in the Scriptural texts. [cf. Paradise 5:2]. Since, however, Ephrem lays great stress on the importance of God’s gift of free will to humanity, this act of self-revelation on God’s part needs, at the same time, to respect human free will, and not to impose itself by force of compulsion. Ephrem describes how this delicate balance is achieved by means of a reciprocal interaction and relationship between God and humanity: God takes the initiative by revealing something of himself and making it available in his two witnesses, but this ‘revelation’ itself still retains a ‘hiddenness’, for the initiative now lies with humanity to discover, uncover, and ‘reveal’ this hiddenness. In this connection Ephrem makes great use of the term raza, literally ‘mystery’, but often more meaningfully translated ‘symbol’ (where ‘symbol’ is understood in the strong sense, the symbol being intrinsically connected with what it symbolizes). Both Nature and the Book are replete with these raze, placed there by God as part of his self-revelation, pointing to some aspect or other of the Godhead. In every place, if you look, His symbol (raza) is there, and wherever you read (in Scripture), you will find His types. All that is created was created by Him and He delineated His symbols on His possessions; as He created the world, He gazed upon it – and it became adorned with images of Him: fountains of symbols were opened up and there flowed forth, pouring out, symbols of Him in (all the world’s) limbs! (Virginity 20:12)

7. ST EPHREM, SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

69

The presence of God’s symbols gives true meaningfulness to everything in creation, but this meaningfulness remains hidden until the individual person perceives them, and thus ‘reveals’ their ‘hiddenness’. How does this happen? Ephrem uses as an illustration the way in which the physical eye is capable of sight: according to his understanding of optics, the eye sees when light enters into it, and the brighter the light, the more the eye sees. The spiritual eye, the interior eye of the heart, functions in an analogous way, but by means of faith, rather than light. Only if faith enters into it can this spiritual eye function and begin to perceive the raze, the ‘mysteries’ or ‘symbols’ that are latent in both Nature and the Book; and the greater the faith, the more clearly is the spiritual eye able to perceive the raze. The Scriptures are laid out like a mirror, and the person whose eye is lucid beholds therein the image of Truth.

Placed there is the image of the Father, depicted there is the image of the Son, and that of the Holy Spirit. (Faith 67:8–9).

The most obvious way in which God reveals himself is in the Incarnation, but here too we observe the same paradox of ‘revealed’ yet ‘hidden’, the individual Jesus of Nazareth visible to the physical eye, and the person of Christ the incarnate Word, perceived only by those whose interior spiritual eye is filled with faith. To describe the act of incarnation, Ephrem employs the phrase ‘He put on the body’, following the standard terminology of early Syriac Christianity. This clothing imagery, however, is extended by Ephrem to the Old Testament, where God ‘put on names, or terms’, that is, he as it were became incarnate in human language, allowing himself to be described in human terms. At this point I should like to let Ephrem himself speak at some length. In the following passage, from Hymn 31 of the cycle On Faith, Ephrem delightfully ends up by making his point using as an illustration the way in which a parrot is taught to speak: Let us give thanks to God who has clothed Himself in the names of the body’s various parts: Scripture refers to His ‘ears’ – to teach that He listens to us; it speaks of His ‘eyes’ – to show that He sees us. It was just the names of such things the He put on, and although in His true Being there is no ‘wrath’ or ‘regret’, yet He put on these names too because of our weakness.

We should realize that, had He not put on the names of such things, it would not have been possible for Him to speak with us humans. By means of what belongs to us did He draw close to us: He clothed Himself in our language, so that He might clothe us in His mode of life.

70

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD He asked for our form, and put this on, and then, as a father with his children, He spoke with our childish state.

It is our metaphors that He put on – though He did not literally do so; He then took them off – without actually doing so: when wearing them, He was at the same time stripped of them. He puts one on when it is beneficial, then strips it off in exchange for another; the fact that He strips off and puts on all sorts of metaphors tells us that the metaphor does not apply to His true Being: because that Being is hidden, He has depicted it by means of what is visible.

In one place He was like an old man and the Ancient of Days, then again, He became like a hero, a valiant warrior. For the purpose of judgment He was an old man, but for conflict He was valiant. In one place He was delaying; elsewhere, having run, He became weary. In one place He was asleep, in another, in need. By every means did He weary Himself so as to gain us. For this is the Good One, who could have forced us to please Him, without any trouble to Himself; but instead, He toiled by every means so that we might act pleasingly to Him of our own free will, so that we might depict our beauty with the colours that our own free will had gathered; whereas, if He had adorned us, then we would have resembled a portrait that someone else had painted, adorning it with his own colours. A person who is teaching a parrot to speak hides behind a mirror and teaches it in this way: when the bird turns in the direction of the voice which is speaking it finds in front of its eyes its own resemblance reflected; it imagines that it is another parrot, conversing with itself. The man puts the bird’s image in front of it, so that by this means it might learn how to speak.

This bird is a fellow creature with the man, but although this relationship exists, the man beguiles and teaches the parrot something alien to itself by means of itself; in this way he speaks with it. The Divine Being that in all things is exalted above all in His love bent down from on high and acquired from us what we are used to: He has laboured by every means so as to turn all to Himself. (Faith 31:1–7)

It is an act of immense condescension on God’s part when he allows himself to be spoken of in purely human terms, and these terms must not be taken literally, for to

7. ST EPHREM, SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

71

do so would be to abuse this divine act of grace in Scripture: Ephrem puts the matter as follows: If a person concentrates his attention solely on the terms used to describe God’s greatness that person abuses and misrepresents His greatness, and in this way he goes astray by means of those very terms with which God has clothed Himself for man’s own benefit, and he is ungrateful to that Grace which has stooped low to the level of his childish state, and although Grace has nothing in common with him, yet She has clothed Herself in his likeness in order to bring him to the likeness of Herself. (Paradise 11:6)

At one point Ephrem speaks of Christ as having ‘put on insecurity’ at the incarnation, when he ‘put on the human body’ (Nativity 11:8): the same could be said of God’s ‘putting on human terms’ in the biblical text: he opened himself up to the possibility of being misinterpreted. For Ephrem it is thus essential to approach the biblical text in the right manner, for (in his words) A person who seeks after Truth in a grudging spirit cannot gain knowledge even if he actually encounters it, since envy has clouded his mind and he does not get any the wiser, even if he grabs at that knowledge. (Faith 17:1). What is required is a sense of wonder and, in particular, of love: Your fountain, Lord, remains hidden from the person who does not thirst for You; Your treasury seems empty to the person who rejects You. It is Love which is the treasurer of Your heavenly treasure store. (Faith 32:3).

A later Syriac poet, Jacob of Serugh (died 521), was to emphasize even more the need for a loving approach to Scripture, if its deeper sense was to be grasped. In his prose commentary on Genesis Ephrem distinguishes between the ‘factual’ and a ‘spiritual’ understanding of the biblical text. The former applies to its outer aspect, whereas the latter is concerned with its interior meanings that are to be reached through the perception of the raze, ‘mysteries, symbols’, inherent within it. Whereas with the ‘factual’ approach, a passage’s outer aspect – we might say, its historical interpretation – is (at least in theory) only capable of only one sense, its interior aspect, perceptible only to the interior eye of faith, is capable of many different

72

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

senses all at the same time. This polyvalency is an essential characteristic of Ephrem’s understanding of Scripture, and its proper interpretation. In a poem for the Great Fast, during which there are a great number of Lections, Ephrem compares the Readings to merchants, displaying their wares: In the midst of the Fast the Scriptures have gathered together and become merchants, having in their possession a veritable treasure store of divinity. With that holy Voice as the key they are opened up before all who will listen. Blessed is that King who has opened up His treasury to His people!

(The ‘holy Voice’ will be Christ, the hermeneutical key to a proper understanding of the Scriptures). Having described the different wares that will meet every need, Ephrem sees the Scriptures as ‘a treasure house’ made available by God, and he invites his hearers Open up this treasure store, my brothers and sisters, and take from it with discernment, for this treasure house is the common property of everyone, and each person, as if he were treasurer, possesses their own key, so who can fail to get rich! Blessed is He who has removed the causes of our low estate.

Great is the gift which is cast before our eyes, for even though we all each have two sets of eyes, few are those who have perceived that gift, being aware of what it is and from whom it comes. Have mercy, Lord, on the blind, for all they can see is gold! (Fast 6:1, 3–4)

Here the ‘two sets of eyes’ refer to the physical and the spiritual eyes, the former for external sight, the latter for interior vision that belongs to the lucid eye of the heart. ***

Thus far I have primarily been concerned with how Ephrem envisages the way in which the proper approach to the biblical text should function. For him, as for both the Fathers and their contemporaries, the Rabbis, it is a given premise that the biblical text is inspired, that is, the biblical authors have been, consciously or unconsciously, open to the Spirit of God. Building on this foundation, Ephrem conceives of a triangular relationship, where the three points of reference are: the Holy Spirit, the biblical author, and the reader (or hearer). Whereas the inspiration of the biblical author by the Holy Spirit is taken for granted, what is required is that the reader should likewise be open to the Holy Spirit. In other words, the way in which the reader approaches the biblical text will determine what he or she makes of it, and how many of the raze, mysteries, inherent in it that person will perceive; and the initial choice of how to approach the biblical text is a matter of each individual’s free will. As Ephrem points out:

7. ST EPHREM, SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

73

Any kind of adornment that is the result of compulsion is not genuine, for it is merely imposed: herein lies the greatness of God’s gift, in that a person can adorn themselves of their own accord, seeing that God has removed all compulsion. (Nisibene Hymns 16:11)

I turn now to some of the ways in which Ephrem uses the biblical text. This will depend, in the first place, upon the literary genre that he is employing. Here one can distinguish four main categories, prose, artistic prose, narrative poetry, and lyrical (stanzaic) poetry. Let me offer you a brief flavour of each. In his prose commentaries – on Genesis, the first part of Exodus, and on the Diatessaron or Harmony of the Gospels (to mention only those surviving in Syriac) – we encounter what might be designated a ‘close reading’ of the biblical text, paying great attention both to the details of what the text says, and to what it does not say. An excellent example of this can be found in his Commentary on Genesis chapter 3. In Ephrem’s view, Adam and Eve were created in an intermediary state, neither mortal nor immortal: which of the two they would become was left to the exercise of their own freewill when presented with God’s ‘tiny commandment’ not to eat the fruit of a single tree out of the many trees in Paradise. Furthermore, Satan, the tempter, (I quote) was not allowed to have one of the angels, or one of the Seraphim or Cherubim, sent to Adam for this purpose, nor was Satan allowed to come to the Garden in human appearance … nor in that of any of the giant animals, such as Behemoth or Leviathan … Instead, a mere serpent was allowed to come to them, which, even if it was astute, was nevertheless utterly despised and despicable. (Commentary on Genesis, Section II.18)

Two of Ephrem’s works are in artistic prose; one of these consists in a meditation on the Last Judgment, taking as its starting point the polished mirror of the Gospel which provides the likeness of everyone who looks into it. … It rebukes the defects of the ugly, so that they may remedy themselves …, while to the beautiful it declares that they should be careful of their beauty… (Letter to Publius 1).

As he reflects on various passages in the Gospels, he sees in the mirror (I quote) those who were clamouring “We have eaten and drunken in Your presence” (Luke 13:26), but the Lord answered and told them “It was not me that you were wanting, but simply because you ate bread and had your fill” (cf. John 6:26).

At which point Ephrem sees himself reflected in the mirror of the Gospel:

Then I, who like them, had always taken shelter in his name, and had benefited from the honours give to it, having always spread his name, like a cover, over my faults, – then I was seized with fear, and trembling shook me, and a great trepidation counseled me to turn back and see if there might meet me any of the provi-

74

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD sions required for the narrow road (Matthew 7:14) that leads to the land of salvation. (Letter to Publius 13, 14)

Several narrative poems on specific biblical episodes are attributed to Ephrem, but only two are likely to be genuine, one on the prophet Jonah and the repentance of Nineveh, and the other on the Sinful Woman who anointed the feet of Jesus (Luke 7). Both were translated into Greek, and so became widely known, and both represent a Christianisation of the Jewish genre often described as ‘the rewritten Bible’, involving an imaginative re-telling of the biblical narrative. In the beautiful – and moving – poem on the Sinful Woman, Ephrem traces her journey to the house where Jesus is being entertained, and in the course of her journey he introduces the person who sold her the precious unguent. Having described how she made the initial decision to change her way of life, Ephrem continues (and here I give an extended extract): She stripped off and removed from her body the fine linen clothes of her prostitute's trade. She decided to go and put on a lowly garment of suffering; she drew off from her feet and threw away her elegant but wanton shoes. She directed her footsteps straight for the path to that Heavenly Eagle. She took her gold in the palm of her hand and raised it up towards the height; she began groaning out in secret to Him who hears openly, ‘This, Lord, is what has come to me from my wicked ways, with it will I acquire salvation; this money that has been gathered from orphans, with it will I acquire the Father of orphans’. This is what she said in secret but she began to act in the open: she took her gold pieces in one hand and the alabaster jar in the other; Lk. 7:37 she turned round to go off in haste to the seller of unguents, all sorrowful. The seller of unguents saw her and was amazed, he fell into argument with her and began to say thus to the harlot at the opening of his words: ‘Was it not enough for you, harlot, to corrupt our whole town? What is the meaning of this garb that you are sporting today for your lovers? You have taken off your wantonness and put on humility.

7. ST EPHREM, SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD Previously when you came to me your appearance was quite different from now: you wore fine clothes but carried little in the way of gold coins, yet you wanted the finest unguents to scent your wanton self; whereas here you are today in shabby attire, but carrying a huge quantity of gold coins! I do not understand your change or why you are wearing these clothes. Either wear clothes appropriate to the quality of the scent, or buy a cheaper scent that suits your present clothes, for this scent is neither appropriate or right for these garments which you are wearing. Has some merchant met you who is possessed of great wealth? And have you realized that he does not like your wanton attire? Have you stripped off this wanton dress and put on something modest so that by wearing all sorts of fashions you can capture all of his wealth? But if he really likes this attire, being an upright man, then alas for him, what has he met with but a pit that will swallow up all his merchandize! Now I would advise you, being someone concerned for your advantage, to give up your many men: they have not benefited you, ever since you were a child. Get yourself a single husband who will put a check to your wanton behaviour’. This is what the seller of unguents said, in his discernment, to the prostitute. The prostitute then replied in response to the unguent-seller’s words: ‘Do not admonish me with your talk; do not foil my purpose with your argument. I asked for unguent – and I’m not asking for it for nothing: I have no desire to beat down the price. Take the gold coins, as much as you want, but give me the very best unguent. Take something that does not last, and give me something that does. I am off to Him who is everlasting, and I will buy something that lasts.

75

76

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD As for what you said about a merchant, it is true that one man has met me today who carries with him great wealth; he has stolen me – and I have stolen him: he has stolen away my wrongdoings and sins, whereas I have stolen his merchandize! As for what you said to me about a husband, I have acquired a husband on high whose authority endures for ever, whose kingdom will never come to an end’. (Sermones II.4, lines 54–140)

It is from Ephrem’s lyric poetry, his madrashe of which some 500 survive, that one is able to piece together and gain some idea of the structures of his theological vision, including (as we have seen earlier on) his teaching on how the biblical text should be approached. The madrashe have aptly been described as ‘teaching poems’, since they frequently serve to convey what one might term ‘catechetical instruction’ about the nature and meaning of the Christian message. One topic to which Ephrem devotes quite a number of poems is the Descent of Christ into Sheol, the world of the departed. This theme was one of great importance for many of the Fathers, since it describes Christ’s entry into sacred or liturgical time and space, where it is the quality of an event, and not its place in linear time, that is operative; the theme of the Descent thus serves as a counterbalance to the particularity of the Incarnation into historical time and geographical space. Owing to its very nature, the theme of the Descent can only be described in a story-telling, or mythological (in the good sense of the word), manner, and this is what Ephrem very effectively does, at times in a playful and often humorous way, in a series of dramatic poems where personified Death and Satan argue, sometimes between themselves, about Jesus at the time of the Crucifixion. Both, incidentally, are portrayed as having an excellent knowledge of the biblical text – a challenge to Ephrem’s readership – above all today! In the following extract Death boastfully addresses Jesus as he hangs on the Cross: If you are God, show your might, but if you are man, make trial of our might! Or if it is Adam you are wanting, be off: he is imprisoned here because of his debts…

It was I who conquered all the sages: I have got them all heaped up in the corners of Sheol. Come and enter, son of Joseph, and look at the horrors: the limbs of the giants, Sampson’s huge corpse, the skeleton of the cruel Goliath; there is Og, the son of giants, too, who made a bed of iron, where he reclined: I cut him off and threw him down, I levelled that cedar at Sheol’s gate. …I have spurned silver in the case of the rich

7. ST EPHREM, SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

77

and their presents have failed to bribe me; owners of slaves have never enticed me to take a slave in place of his owner, or a poor man in place of a rich one, or an old person in place of a child. Sages may be able to win over wild animals, but their winning words do not enter my ears. Everyone calls me ‘hater of requests’, but I simply perform what I am bidden. Who is this? Whose son? And of what family is this man who would vanquish me? The book with the genealogies is here with me: I have begun and taken the trouble to read all the names, from Adam onwards, and none of the dead escape me: tribe by tribe they are all written down on my limbs. It is for your sake, Jesus, that I have undertaken this reckoning, in order to show you that no one escapes from my hands. There are two men – I must not deceive – whose names are missing from me in Sheol: Enoch and Elijah did not come to me; I looked for them in the whole of creation, I even went down to the place where Jonah went, and groped around, but they were not there; and when I thought they might have entered Paradise and escaped – there was the fearful cherub guarding it. Jacob saw a ladder; maybe it was by this that they got up to heaven.

Death continues in this way for several more stanzas, but then, just as (I quote) Death had finished his taunting speech, our Lord’s voice rang out (Matthew 27:50) thunderously in Sheol, tearing open each grave one by one, and the angels enter to bring out the dead to meet the Dead One who has given Life to all. (Nisibene Hymns 36, stanzas 2–3, 5–7, 11)

The entry of Christ into Sheol finally leads Death to ask forgiveness for his earlier words, and to confess that Christ is indeed both Man and God. He then asks: O Jesus, King, accept my request, and with my request, take your hostage; carry off, as your great hostage, Adam in whom all the dead are hidden – just as, when I received him, in him all the living were concealed. As first hostage I give you Adam’s body. Ascend now and reign over all, and when I hear your trumpet call, with my own hands will I bring forth the dead at your coming. (stanza 17)

78

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD ***

All Ephrem’s writings are deeply imbued with a profound knowledge of, and insight into, the biblical text; allusions abound, and in many cases it turns out that interpretative hints given in passing by Ephrem are picked up and developed by later poets, above all by Jacob of Serugh. I hope that the various excerpts that I have quoted will have provided some idea of the creative ways in which Ephrem approaches the Word of God. But let St Ephrem have the last word, in a passage where he dwells on the inexhaustibility of Scripture and its multivalency. He starts by addressing Christ himself: Who is capable of comprehending the extent of what is to be discovered in a single utterance of Yours? For we leave behind in it far more than we take from it, like thirsty people drinking from a fountain.

The facets of His words are more numerous than the faces of those who learn from them. God depicted His words with many beauties, so that each of those who learn from them can examine that aspect of them which he likes. And God has hidden within His words all sorts of treasures, so that each of us can be enriched by them from whatever aspects they meditate on. For God’s word is the Tree of Life which proffers blessed fruits to you on all sides; it is like the Rock which was struck in the Wilderness, which became a spiritual drink for everyone on all sides: ‘They ate the food of the Spirit and the drank the draft of the Spirit’ (I Corinthians 10:3)

Anyone who encounters Scripture should not suppose that the single one of its riches that he has found is the only one to exist; rather, he should realize that he himself is only capable of discovering that one out of the many riches which exist in it. Nor, because Scripture has enriched him, should the reader impoverish it. Rather, if the reader is incapable of finding more, let him acknowledge Scripture’s magnitude. Rejoice because you have found satisfaction, and do not be grieved that there has been something left over by you. A thirsty person rejoices because he has drunk: he is not grieved because he proved incapable of drinking the fountain dry. Let the fountain vanquish your thirst; your thirst should not vanquish the fountain! If your thirst comes to an end while the fountain has not been diminished, then you can drink again whenever you are thirsty; whereas, if the fountain had been drained dry once you had had your fill, your victory over it would have proved to your own harm. Give thanks for what you have taken away, and do not complain about the superfluity that is left over. What you have taken off with you is your portion; what has been left behind can still be your inheritance. (Commentary on the Diatessaron I:18–19)

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

A guide to the editions and translations of Ephrem’s writings can be found in chapter 24, below. A general introduction to his thought is given in my The Luminous Eye: the Spiritual World View of St Ephrem (2nd edn Kalamazoo, 1992), with translation in

7. ST EPHREM, SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

79

French (in Spiritualité orientale 50; 1991), Arabic (1994), Romanian (1998), Persian (1998), Italian (1999), and Swedish (2010). Several of the passages quoted here are also to be found in my ‘Saint Ephrem the Syrian on reading Scripture’, Downside Review 438 (Jan. 2007), pp. 37–50 = chapter 11, below.

8

THE POET AS THEOLOGIAN * We tend to think of theology as the preserve of academics, a rather cerebral affair at the best of times. Evagrius, however, has a famous aphorism: 1 “If you are a theologian, you will pray in truth; if you pray in truth, you will be a theologian”. The theologian is someone who prays in truth. His theology can be expressed in all sorts of different ways – in words, in art, in music, in his very style of life. Thus we should not be surprised to find good theology in the work of poets who pray in truth. I would like to illustrate this, using the example of one particular poet, who impresses me as a really creative theologian (and one from whom I myself have learnt a very great deal). He died 1603 years ago, in what is to-day a small provincial town in south east Turkey, Urfa, but in his day was the spiritual centre of Syriac-speaking Christianity, Edessa, the home of king Abgar, who, according to early tradition, corresponded with Christ. His name is Ephrem, the numerical value of whose letters in Syriac is the some as that of ‘cross’ as he playfully points out on one occasison. 2 St Ephrem has left a large body of religious poetry, some of it of very great beauty, and as a result of his enormous reputation in antiquity, many of his poems were translated into Greek, and so came to influence the great Byzantine liturgical poets, from Romanos onwards. Ephrem is probably more like what we expect of a conventional theologian than many other great poet-theologians, in that he writes specifically religious poetry (certainly not a sine qua non of a poet-theologian) aand he deals directly with wide areas of the subject. But he is certainly not a systematic theologian, or one who is continually seeking for definitions. Indeed, the search for precise definitions on topics that belong to areas beyond the experience and capacity of the human intellect is, in Ephrem’s eyes, something that only prying rationalists (in his case the Arians) indulge in, and their example should not be imitated. Had Ephrem lived half a cenOriginally published in Sobornost 7.4 (1977), 243–50. PG 79, col. 1180B 2 Hymns on Virginity, 21.8. For available English tranlations of Ephrem’s works, see the bibliographical note at the end of my The Harp of the Spirit: Twelve Poems of St Ephrem (Studies Supplementary to Sobornost, no 4; 1975) and chapter 24, below. *

1

81

82

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

tury later, he would have witnessed how the church, in self-defence against these rationalist tendencies, had herself been forced to offer her own definitions on the various mysteries of the Incarnation. If a label is required, ‘symbolic theology’ would be the least inappropriate designation of Ephrem’s approach. The freedom of this kind of theology from {244} Greek modes of thought is striking, and it has been a particularly pleasing experience to discover how Ephrem’s un-Greek – and so, un-European – approach has a special appeal for African Christians. My aim in this paper is to attempt to sketch out something of the framework of Ephrem’s thought Central to the Christian mystery, for Ephrem, is always the utter paradox of God becoming man, the ‘Great One who became small’, the ‘Shepherd who became the lamb’, the ‘Farmer who became the grain of wheat’: The Mighty One entered, and put on insecurity from Mary’s womb; the Provisioner of all entered – and experienced hunger; He who gives drink to all entered – and experienced thirst; naked and stripped there came forth from Mary He who clothes all. 3

The precise nature of the ‘mystery’ (a favourite word of Ephrem’s) of the Incarnation is totally beyond the probings of man, and can only be approached by means of the language of metaphor, and – most important – in the context of prayer and wonder. Poetry is thus the ideal tool for theology, enabling Ephrem to illuminate this, and many other tensions in Christianity, that are not susceptible to rational exposition or explanation. Speaking in very broad terms, one can observe that in the history of Christianity two basically different approaches exist One sees God and the ‘holy’ as immanent in the world, spilling over untidily, as it were, from the sacraments into the rest of life; the other seeks to confine the sphere of the ‘holy’ to certain restricted and welldefined areas (most obviously the sacraments), refusing to recognize it anywhere else: ‘God on Sundays only, humanity is perfectly well in control the rest of the week, thank you’. In English literature something of the difference between these two approaches can be seen in the contrast between seventeenth and eighteenth century poetry; in Eastern Christianity the second approach is I believe essentially to be found in the Iconoclast movement, 4 and later on in the opposition to Hesychasm. The former approach, which seems to me the only truly Christian one, is very much Ephrem’s. As a notice outside Friends’ House in London puts it: ‘Don’t put religion in a Sunday box. Let God and humanity spill around’.

5).

3

Hymns on the Nativity, 11:8 (The whole poem will be found in The Harp of the Spirit, no

See my ‘Iconoclasm and the Monophysites’, in Iconoclasm (ed A. Bryer and J. Herrin; Birmingham, 1976). 4

8. THE POET AS THEOLOGIAN

83

The immanence of the holy in this world involves Ephrem in recognizing connections between everything; everything is of significance and has the potential of being a pointer to Christ: all that is required is the eye of faith to see these hidden links. The language in which Ephrem expresses the relationships between Christ and his two ‘witnesses’, scripture and the natural world, is that of typology. St Paul had already set the scene for this in the New Testament with his first Adam, second Adam typology, but with Ephrem typology is not longer just a system of biblical exegesis, but it has become a way of life. It is a means of contemplation, a continuous meditation on both the material world and the Bible, a meditation whose aim is essentially to induce a sense of wonder and of awe, often providing a sort of ‘ascent of the mind’ by analogy as we can see in the following passage: meditating on the beauties of Paradise, Ephrem says: 5 Although I was unworthy of the waves of its beauty, {245} Paradise took me up and cast me into a yet greater sea. In its fairness I saw the saints who are far more beautiful than it, and I pondered: if Paradise be so glorious, how much more glorious Adam, who is the image of its Planter, and how much fairer the Cross that the Son of its Lord rode.

Typology can take place on two different planes, sometimes simultaneously: a horizontal plane, Old Testament – New Testament, and a vertical plane, this world – the heavenly world. What is hidden in the Old Testament is revealed in the New, what is revealed in the sacraments points to what is to us the hiddenness of God In his poetry Ephrem offers his readers a whole profusion of types and symbols. They are meant to serve as ‘possible models’, which are held up, and whose purpose is to make meaningful, and give insight into, some aspect of a mystery that cannot be fully comprehended by the human intellect. It is very much a subjective approach, since it value depends primarily on the meaning it imparts to each individual; and its fluidity, which will be abhorrent to someone brought up on nineteenth and twentieth-century biblical criticism, is an essential element, for once it has lost this, typology becomes fossilized and its value disappears. As a matter of fact, typology and modern biblical criticism are complementary, not conflicting methods of biblical interpretation, and they only come into conflict when exclusive claims (of a totally illegitimate nature) are made for the one at the expense of the other; here it is essential not to lose sight of the fact that they are operating in two quite separate modes of understanding. Ephrem’s typology is also mythopoeic; it flourishes in a luxuriant garden of Christian mythology: Mary conceives through her ear, for example, for reasons which will be clear from the following: 6

5 6

Hymns on Paradise, 6.5. Hymns on the Church, 49.7.

84

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD Just as death’s poison entered in and was poured out in that small womb of Eve’s ear, so too did Salvation enter in to that new ear of Mary’s, to be poured out there.

To the historically-minded, this again will appear abhorrent, but Ephrem is not concerned with history; rather , following the example of all peoples and cultures in the history of mankind, he uses mythology as a means of expressing something of a reality, the full comprehension of which lies beyond the bounds of human experience and understanding. Types and symbols are not simply pointers, for to Ephrem ‘the symbol contains within itself the actual presence of that which it symbolizes’ 7 – a view by no means confined to Ephrem, but one common to the Fathers, leading to an essentially sacramental view of the world. Thus we can find Ephrem speaking of Tamar as stealing from her father-in-law Judah ‘the Medicine of Life’ (a frequent title of Christ) that lay on his person’. 8 This understanding of the nature of symbols is intimately tied up with Ephrem’s conception of the nature of time. In what one might call our overdeveloped’ western Christianity, we have more or less lost consciousness of another dimension of time, alongside ordinary, linear, historical time. This other {246} dimension of time is usually known as ‘sacred’, or ‘liturgical’ time. All moments in ordinary linear time, whose salvific content is the same, converge to a single point in sacred time This rather compact statement is best illustrated by a practical example: a liturgical feast and the particular salvific event that it commemorates, though far separate in historical time, can, in sacred time, come together. This helps explain why liturgical poetry so often starts “Today is Christ born, etc.” I should stress that this concept of sacred time is not a piece of eastern mystification; anthropologists recognize it as common to all religions, 9 and it is by no means confined to oriental Christianity (it was once just as much present in western). The effect of all this in Ephrem’s poetry can best be seen when Ephrem is talking about the eucharistic or baptismal liturgy. To Ephrem, Christ ‘opens up’ Christian baptism at his own baptism in the river Jordan. Thus, addressing the river itself, Ephrem says: 10 How blessed are your streams that were purified at the descent of the Holy One, who condescended to wash in you. When he went down to be baptized, he opened up baptism for the forgiving of souls.

This is the definition of P. Evdokimov, ‘The Vision of Beauty; the Bible, the Fathers and the Icon’ in Christian, vol. 3, no 3 (1976), p. 227. 8 Hymns on the Church, 11.4 (Genesis 38). 9 See in particular the various works of Mircea Eliade, e.g. Patterns in Comparative Religion (1958), p. 391ff. 10 Hymns on Virginity, 15.3. 7

8. THE POET AS THEOLOGIAN

85

Seen from the point of view of historical time, this is illogical, since it anticipates the death and resurrection of Christ Ephrem is, nevertheless, very well aware of the Pauline teaching on baptism, and for him Christ’s baptism in the Jordan, together with the Nativity and Passion and Resurrection, form a single salvific unit, a single moment as it were in sacred time, which can be localized as a whole at any of these points in historical time – Nativity, Baptism, Passion or Resurrection. 11 But sacred time has a further role to play here for Ephrem. At Christ’s entry into the river Jordan, the waters went up in flames, according to an early Syriac tradition. This was seen as an indication that the Jordan, as representative of all baptismal water in future, had been consecrated. At every Christian baptism thereafter the invocation of the Holy Spirit, in the prayer of consecration for the baptismal water, effects an entry into sacred time, and the consequent bringing together, in sacred time, of that particular celebration of Christian baptism with Christ’s own baptism in Jordan – however far apart they might be in historical time. The water in the font is effectively now the same as the water of the Jordan after Christ had entered it. This will explain, incidentally, why in several eastern rites the font is actually called ‘the Jordan’. An analogous entry into sacred time is to be found very obviously in the eucharistic liturgy, again effected by the working of the Holy Spirit. Whereas in baptism the chain of salvific events wrought by the Incarnation as a whole are all focused on Christ’s baptism, in the Eucharist the focus shifts to the Last Supper and Passion. Each celebration of the liturgy is thus a representation of the meal in the Upper Room, and at the same time of the Passion itself – something very much more than just a memorial of it. Speaking of the Fraction of the consecrated bread Ephrem says; 12 At that moment when his sacred body is broken, then we recall his immolation: {247} Let all the limbs of the body tremble at the moment of the immolation of the Only-Begotten.

The Fraction is not just the recalling of Christ’s immolation, it merges into it in sacred time. In another passage Ephrem describes the Eucharist as the ‘spiritual bread which becomes for everyone an eagle that conveys them to Paradise’. 13 Baptism, culminating in the Syrian rite with the Eucharist, is seen by Ephrem precisely as an entry into Paradise, into the kingdom of heaven ‘We have eaten Christ’s body in place of the fruit on the Tree of Paradise, and his altar has taken the place of the garden of Eden for us; the curse has been washed away by his innocent blood, and

For a poem where dramatic use is made of the concept of sacred time, see my ‘St Ephrem on Christ as Light in Mary and in the Jordan: Hymni dc Ecclesia 36’, Eastern Churches Review VII.2 (1976), pp. 137–44 = chapter 17, below. 12 Hymnes de Saint Ephrem conservies en version arménienne (Patrologia Orientalis XXXI; 161), p. 49 (p. 227). 13 Hymns on Unleavened Bread, 17.12. 11

86

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

in the hope of the resurrection we await the life that is to come, and indeed we already walk in this new life, in that we already have the pledge of it’. 14 The tension between sacred and historical time here is very obvious: as far as sacred time is concerned, the baptized person is already in the kingdom of heaven, he eats the bread of angels. In historical time, however, he is of course very much still on earth, assailed by temptations, by ‘the party of the tares’, as Ephrem sometimes puts it. Yet the kingdom of heaven is within him, the potential for continually entering it is there, effected by the Holy Spirit. ‘Do not constrain the Spirit’, said Paul (Ephesians 4:30); the corollary for Ephrem is: allow the Holy Spirit to effect for you this entry into sacred time at every moment of your life. Ephrem realizes that the Christian must seek to achieve a continuous metanoia, turning of the mind, a perpetual revolution in his life, ceaselessly striving to make sacred and historical time effectively one as far as he of she is concerned. Ephrem’s poetry is ever urging his readers and hearers to pray ‘may your kingdom come’ with fervour. There is one other area where sacred time plays a vital role in Ephrem’s poetry. One of his favourite themes is the descent of Christ into the underworld, an article of the creed that many people today find abhorrently mythical. Actually, once one has recaptured the importance of sacred time, the Descent can be seen in its proper perspective, and it turns out to play an essential role in the Church’s understanding of the Incarnation, and her proclamation of its effects. Because the Incarnation took place in historical time, and at a particular plape, its effects are limited by time (in that it cannot work in retrospect) and by space (in that it took place in Palestine). This scandal of particularity is obviated precisely by the Descent and, in Syriac tradition, the baptism of Adam. The Descent takes place in sacred, not historical, time, and so it brings the effects of the Incarnation to all who live before the Incarnation took place in historical time, and to all, presumably, to whom the Christian gospel never reaches in space. Because the meaning of the Descent is concerned with something outside historical time, there is no alternative to describing it in mythic terms – and mythology, as pointed out earlier, has always been man’s means of expressing his understanding of divine reality and what is essentially undescribable in rational terms. 15 I tried to stress earlier that the strength of typology lay precisely in its fluid and subjective character: its value depends {248} entirely on the response of each individual. But at the same time, the mysteries to which the types and symbols point have their stable objective existence. We find exactly the same sort of tension in Ephrem’s understanding of the meaning of biblical inspiration. Like all the Fathers, he of course believes that the biblical writers were inspired, but what matters just as much to him is that the individual reader of the scriptures should be equally open to the Holy Commentary on the Diatessaron, 21.25. See also my ‘World and Sacrament in the writings of the Syrian Fathers’, Sobornost, ser. 6, no 10 (1974), pp. 685–96. 15 An example of one of Ephrem’s Descent hymns will be found in The Harp of the Spirit, no 7. 14

8. THE POET AS THEOLOGIAN

87

Spirit’s inspiration. A passage in Ephrem’s Hymns on Paradise illustrates very well this wonderfully dynamic view of inspiration – the Holy Spirit working through scripture and the individual who reads or hears it. Ephrem is here describing his own experience of reading the opening verses of the paradise narrative in Genesis: 16 I read the opening of the book, and was full of joy, for its verses and lines spread out their arms to welcome me; the first rushed out and kissed me, and led me on to the next, and when I reached that line where the story of Paradise is written, it lifted me up and transported me from the bosom of the book to the very bosom of Paradise.

Elsewhere Ephrem illustrates how essential it is for the individual to respond to the prompting of the Holy Spirit, by means of the analogy of the effect of light on the eye: Mary is the model of someone who allows the light to enter her eye, and so she is able to see clearly, and at the same time to radiate that light (which is, of course, on one level identical with Christ). Her opposite is Eve, who allows her eye to be darkened, so becoming spiritually blind herself, and at the same time casting darkness on all around. Ephrem playfully treats Eve and Mary as the left and right eyes of the world: 17 The world, you see, has two eyes fixed in it: Eve was its left, blind, while the right eye, bright, is Mary. Through the eye that was darkened the whole world was darkened, and men groped and thought that every stone that they stumbled upon was a god, calling falsehood truth. But when the world was illumined by that other eye and the heavenly Light that resided in its midst, men became reconciled once again with God, realizing that what they had stumbled on was destroying their very life.

The choice to whether we allow the light to enter our eyes is entirely up to us. Everything thus depends on the response of the individual. This is the exercise of man’s freewill: is he going to allow the grace of the Holy Spirit to work within him, or is he going to ‘constrain’ it? It is, as Ephrem stresses, an awe-inspiring responsibility. In this sort of context we can see the importance of the symbols of water and fire in Baptism and in the Eucharist. In themselves these elements are ambiguous, they can be destructive or life-giving; the ‘fire’ of the Holy Spirit, which for Ephrem enters the baptismal font nd the bread and wine at their consecration, retains something of this ambiguous character, in that it is just as much the fire of judgement which consumes those who treat these mysteries with contempt. 16 17

Hymns on Paradise, 5.3. (For the whole poem, see The Harp of the Spirit, no. 2). Hymns on the Church, 37.5–7.

88

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

The awe that all this inspires in Ephrem can be seen from the following stanzas from a beatiful hymn on the Incarnation, the Holy Spirit and the Sacraments: 18 {249}

In your bread there is hidden the Spirit who is not consumed, in your wine there dwells the Fire that is not drunk: the Spirit is in your bread, the Fire in your wine, a manifest wonder, that our lips have received … The seraph could not touch the fire’s coal with his fingers, but just brought it close to Isaiah’s mouth: the seraph did not hold it, Isaiah did not consume it, but us our Lord has allowed to do both …

Fire descended in wrath and consumed sinners; the Fire of mercy descended and dwelt in the bread. Instead of that fire which consumed mankind, you have consumed Fire in the bread and you come to Life. Fire descended and consumed Elijah’s sacrifices; the Fire of mercies has become a living sacrifice for us. Fire consumed the oblation; we, Lord, have consumed your Fire in your oblation.

The transformation in the bread and wine effected by the descent of the consecrating fire of the Holy Spirit serves Ephrem as a model for other potential transformations in the material world that can be effected by means of man’s co-operation with the Holy Spirit, 19 transformations not only in ouselves, but also in the material world around us, effected by means of the use to which we put things. I have tried in this paper, all too inadequately I fear, to put across something of St Ephrem’s way of looking at things: the total invasion of theology into ordinary, everyday, life, cultivating an attitude of praise and wonder that allows the Holy Spirit to bring about in each one of us the kingdom of God. 20 Whar is essential, Ephrem realizes, is our response, our allowing the Holy Spirit to work within us, allowing him to remove the scales from our eyes, 21 so that we can see the transfigured Christ Hymns on Faith, 10.8, 10, 12, 13. (For an English translation of the whole poem, see R. Murray, ‘A hymn of St Ephrem to Christ on the Incarnation, the Holy Spirit and the Sacraments’, Eastern Churches Review iii, (1970), pp. 142–50; see also my translation in chapter 17, below. 19 See also ‘World and Sacrament …’, pp. 692–3. 20 Praise, for Ephrem, is the whole aim of our creation; if we fail in this, we are as good as already dead. See The Harp of the Spirit, nos 1 and 10 in particular. 21 I gratefully borrow the imagery from a sermon given during the course of the liturgy by Fr. Benedict Ramsden on the day this paper was given at the Fellowship Conference, the eve of the Transfiguration. 18

8. THE POET AS THEOLOGIAN

89

and through him, the world transfigured. Curiously enough, St Ephrem never seems to refer to the Transfiguration, but much of his poetry is a marvellous commentary on the meaning and implications of this feast. Perhaps I might end with an extract form a poem where St Ephrem puts the Eucharist into the context of another mountain theophany: 22 Our mouth is too small to give thanks, our tongue inadequate to utter blessing, for he, to whom the very heavens are small, became small himself, giving himself to be confined in our hands. Mount Sinai, on which he descended,

{250} gave a great thunder crash in trepidation; that power, which overawed the mountain, our very fingers grasp and hold. Earth, sea and sky are contained as it were in the palm of God’s hand, yet man’s feeble mouth, tiny by comparison, is sufficient to hold him!

22

Armenian hymns, no. 47 (p. 221).

9

THEOLOGY THROUGH POETRY: THE EXAMPLE OF ST EPHREM * All those who are heirs to the Western European tradition of Christianity have in many ways been conditioned by this tradition to think of theology as a subject which is essentially the preserve of those who have been professionally trained in theology, and that the proper vehicle for theological writing, as for any other academic subject, is prose. That poetry can also serve as a perfectly valid means of theological expression is an idea that will seem strange to most people today: religious poetry, of course, is perfectly familiar, but specifically theological poetry is not. The fact that Pope Benedict XV, in 1920, proclaimed the greatest poet of the early Church, St Ephrem the Syrian (+373), to be a Doctor of the universal Church, should encourage us to think again about our expectations, for in St Ephrem we find an example of someone who is both an exceptionally fine poet and at the same time a profound theologian. Before turning to St Ephrem as a theologian who deliberately chose poetry as the medium through which to express his theological vision, it is worth reflecting briefly on why we have come to have such a restricted expectation of the proper vehicle for theological writing. At the risk of oversimplification, one can perhaps point to two factors which lie at the roots of this malady. The first factor is a general tendency to forget, or at best to give little attention to, two well-known sayings by Evagrius in his treatise On Prayer: “If you are a theologian, you will truly pray, and if you truly pray, you will be a theologian” (# 61), and “Prayer is the conversation of the mind with God” (# 3). In other words, the essential link between “talking with God” (prayer) and “talking about God” (theology) has all too often been lost. The second factor lies in the widespread loss of the biblical and patristic understanding of the heart as the spiritual centre of the intellectual, as well as of the emotional, faculties. This separation of “heart” and “mind”, which can be traced back to the western Middle Ages, has resulted in the mind, now located in the head, being understood as the focus of all intellectual activity, for which the proper literary vehi23.

*

Originally published in Italian in V. Truhlar, Teologia in Poesia (Rome: Lipa, 2002), 7–

91

92

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

cle is prose, while the heart is now seen solely as the seat of the emotions, for which poetry is often the best vehicle. Once we become aware of these two developments, and recapture, on the one hand, the essential link between theology and prayer, and, on the other hand, the biblical and patristic understanding of the heart as the spiritual centre for the intellect as well as for the emotions, then it will be no longer a matter of surprise that a first-class poet who prays truly can also be a first-class theologian. The fourthcentury Syriac poet Ephrem provides an excellent example of how this can be the case. Although a casual reader of Ephrem’s poetry might just conclude that Ephrem was no more than another good religious poet, anyone who has taken the trouble to get immersed in his writings will become aware that a coherent theological vision underpins all his poetry, even if this theological vision is never expressed in a systematic way. This is in fact deliberate on Ephrem’s part: his tools for conducting theology (in the strict sense of talking about God) are not concepts or carefully defined terms; rather, they consist in images, symbols (the Syriac term also means “mysteries” [see below]), and the language of paradox. For Ephrem, any idea that God could be “defined” was abhorrent, since “definition” implies placing limits (Latin fines) around God who is limitless. The idea that one could in some way “define” anything about God was in fact doubly blasphemous for Ephrem, since it implies that the (human) mind that claims to comprehend God would be greater than the object of its comprehension. As Ephrem puts it: A person who is capable of investigating becomes the container of what he investigates; a knowledge which is capable of containing the Omniscient is greater than Him, for it has proved capable of measuring the whole of Him. A person who investigates the Father and Son is thus greater than Them! Far be it, then, and something anathema, that the Father and Son should be investigated while dust and ashes exalts itself! (Madrashe on Faith 9:16)

Ephrem’s alternative approach can perhaps best be seen by using a visual image: instead of trying to define the central point (that is, God) within a circle, Ephrem provides a whole series of paradoxes at opposite points of the circumference of the circle; God is, as it were, located at the unexpressed, and thus undefined, point in the centre of the circle where the lines joining all the paradoxes at opposite points on the circumference meet. The location of the centre point of the circle is thus held in perpetual tension and suspension. An understanding of Ephrem’s basic epistemology enables one to appreciate his approach better. For him the fundamental division lies between Creator and creation, rather than (for example) between spiritual and material, or invisible and visible. Between the two there lies a “chasm” (Ephrem takes the term from Luke 16:26), which can only be crossed in one direction. Thus, without some prior initia-

9. THEOLOGY THROUGH POETRY: THE EXAMPLE OF ST EPHREM

93

tive on the part of the Creator, humanity, as part of creation, could not attain to any knowledge at all of the Creator: If God had not wished to disclose Himself to us there would not have been anything in creation able to elucidate anything at all about Him. (Madrashe on Faith 44:7)

For Ephrem this self-revelatory divine initiative had already taken place prior to the Incarnation in various ways, through both Nature (the natural world) and Scripture. In these “two witnesses” to God, as Ephrem calls them, there are inherent an infinite number of “symbols” or “mysteries”: Wherever you turn your eyes, there is God’s symbol, whatever your read, there you will find His types. (Madrashe on Virginity 20:12)

The Syriac term by Ephrem for “symbols” or “mysteries” is raze. The word has many different connotations, and no modern language has a satisfactory single equivalent. The rendering “symbol” must be understood in a strong sense: they are not feeble reflections, essentially different from what they symbolize; rather, these symbols have an ontological connection with some aspect of the “truth”, or divine reality, that they symbolize. They function in much the same way as the logoi, or inherent rationales, do for St Maximus the Confessor. They serve as pointers to God and to his divine plan of salvation, but because their presence is latent, they do not, as it were, force some aspect of knowledge of God on human beings, and so they do not impinge on the divine gift of human freewill. The raze await discovery, and once discovered, they will give meaning to the world. However, in order to begin to perceive their presence, a first step in required on the part of human beings, and this first step involves an act of faith, namely, the belief that, beyond creation, there is a Creator. By way of illustration Ephrem uses the image of the interior, or spiritual, eye. According to his understanding of optics, the eye is enabled to see through the presence in it of light, and the more it is filled with light, the more it sees. The interior eye is seen as functioning in a similar way, but here the light is the light of faith. At the initial step of faith, when faith is weak, the interior eye is only able dimly to perceive the raze, the symbols or mysteries inherent in Nature and Scripture; this initial perception, however, lends strength to faith, and so the inner eye is thus enabled to perceive the raze more clearly. Ephrem sees this reciprocal process as progressing, as it were in a spiraling motion, until the inner eye is filled with the light of faith and is thus enabled to perceive these hidden pointers to a divine reality everywhere in Nature and Scripture; for such a person, meaning becomes apparent in everything, and an awareness is gained of the interconnectedness of everything. As Ephrem says on one occasion, to experience this is overwhelming, and he exclaims: This Jesus has made so many symbols that I have fallen into the sea of them! (Madrashe on Nisibis 39:17)

94

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

It needs to be stressed that although raze, or symbols, are revelatory in that they provide a means of gaining knowledge about God and divine reality, they definitely do not serve as “proof texts” of God’s existence: this would have meant that they were imposing belief by force, thus nullifying the gift to humanity of freewill: Any kind of adornment that is the result of force is not genuine, for it is merely imposed. Herein lies the greatness of God's gift, that someone can adorn himself of his own accord, in that God has removed all compulsion. (Madrashe on Nisibis 16:11)

Despite his insistance on the role of faith, it is important to emphasize that Ephrem is by no means a fideist: the use of reason is a divine gift that ought to be used – but its use belongs to the created world, that is, to what is situated on this side of the “chasm”, and indeed it is the role of reason to discern its own limitations, and to deduce that it has no ability to function beyond the chasm separating creation from the Creator. Faith and reason thus should be seen as complementing one another, and not in conflict. While raze, symbols and mysteries, lie hidden, awaiting discovery, in both Nature and Scripture, there is to be found within Scripture an additional way in which God can be seen as having crossed the ontological “chasm” between Creator and creation, thus enabling humanity to attain to some knowledge of him. Ephrem describes God as having “put on” human language, that is, allowed himself to be spoken of metaphorically in human terms in the biblical text. In view of this act of divine condescension, it is all the more important that human beings do not abuse God’s graciousness by taking the metaphors literally: If someone concentrates his attention solely on the metaphors used of God’s majesty, he abuses and misrepresents that majesty by means of those metaphors with which God has clothed Himself for humanity’s own benefit, and he is ungrateful to that Grace which has bent down its stature to the level of human childishness; even though God has nothing in common with it, He clothed himself in the likeness of humanity in order to bring humanity to the likeness of Himself. (Madrashe on Paradise 11:6)

In another poem Ephrem provides an amusing analogy to the way in which God reveals something of himself to human beings by allowing himself to be spoken of in human language: he compares God’s action to that of a man teaching a parrot to talk with the help of a mirror; the parrot, seeing itself in the mirror, thinks that it is another parrot that is talking to him, and not the man. At the end of his analogy, Ephrem points out that, although the man considers himself a very different creature from the parrot, nevertheless he and the parrot both belong to creation, and so

9. THEOLOGY THROUGH POETRY: THE EXAMPLE OF ST EPHREM

95

the difference between them is infinitesimal compared to that between the Creator and human beings, his creation. There are two further important aspects of Ephrem’s understanding of the mode of God’s self-revelation through the biblical text. Firstly, the biblical text, when read with the interior eye of faith, is polyvalent, and no longer univalent, as it might appear from the point of view of a historical (and academic) reading of the text. In other words, when the inner eye perceives the symbols, or raze, latent in the text, the text takes on an additional new dimension of meaning, or rather meanings, since the reader now begins to see the interconnections between the text in question and different aspects of the divine plan of salvation. In many cases these raze will point to and find their resting place in Christ. As Ephrem expresses it with reference to symbols in Nature, Creation gives birth to Christ in symbols, as Mary did in the flesh. (Madrashe on Virginity 6:8).

Other symbols will point to the sacramental life of the Church, and others again, to the eschaton and the heavenly world. In a passage in his Commentary on the Diatessaron, or Harmony of the Gospels, where Ephrem compares the biblical text to a fountain which can never be drunk dry, he comments: Anyone who encounters Scripture should not suppose that the single one of its riches is the only one to exist; rather, he should realize that he himself is only capable of discovering that one out of the many riches that exist in it.

And a little earlier he points out:

The facets of God’s words are more numerous than the faces of those who learn from them. God has depicted his words with many beauties, so that each of those who learn from them can examine that aspect of them which he likes. And God has hidden within His words all sorts of treasures so that each of us can be enriched by them from whatever aspects each meditates upon. (Commentary on the Diatessaron I.18–19)

As was the case with Ephrem’s understanding of the complementary relationship between reason and faith, so too there coexist two different, but complementary, ways of reading the biblical text. Ephrem terms these “factual” and “spiritual”. The former could be said to correspond, mutatis mutandis, to a critical historical approach, while the latter to an approach using the inner eye of faith. Each is valid within its own limitations. The second aspect of Ephrem’s understanding of how God reveals himself through the raze in Scripture (and likewise in Nature) concerns the attitude of the individual involved. Knowledge of God only comes through a relationship of love. Ephrem again uses the image of a fountain: Your fountain, Lord, is hidden from the person who does not thirst for You; Your treasury seems empty to the person who rejects You.

96

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD Love is the treasurer of Your heavenly treasure store. (Madrashe on Faith 32:3)

In another poem he employs a different image to make the same point: Truth and Love are wings that cannot be separated, for Truth without Love is unable to fly; so too, Love without Truth is unable to soar up: their yoke is one of harmony. (Madrashe on Faith 20:12)

The attitude of the person who searches for Truth will have an effect on what he finds: A person who seeks after truth with a grudging spirit cannot gain knowledge even if he actually encounters it, for envy has clouded his mind, and he does not get any the wiser, even if he grabs at that knowledge. (Madrashe on Faith 17:1)

Elsewhere Ephrem describes in a vivid way how the biblical text will respond to the reader, provided that person approaches the text (here the narrative in Genesis about Paradise) with an attitude of love: I read the opening of the book and was filled with joy, for its verses and lines spread out their arms to welcome me; the first rushed out and kissed me, and led me on to its companion; and when I reached that verse wherein is written the story of Paradise, it lifted me up and transported me from the bosom of the book to the very bosom of Paradise. (Madrashe on Paradise 5:3)

Ephrem, like Martin Buber centuries later, saw that an I-Thou relationship was an essential starting point for the theologian. This meant that, for Ephrem as well as for his younger contemporary Evagrius, cited earlier, theology needs to be intimately connected with prayer. Thus the conduct of all proper theological enquiry requires as its starting point an interactive relationship between the individual and God; here God is not to be seen as the object of enquiry, but a Person who is encountered. Only when that encounter with divine Love is met with a response of love will that encounter prove to be truly theophanic, and in this way, a source of meaningful knowledge of God.

9. THEOLOGY THROUGH POETRY: THE EXAMPLE OF ST EPHREM

97

Thus far, my concern has been to try to explain Ephrem’s understanding of the ways by which humanity can attain to at least some knowledge of God. In the remainder of this paper I turn to the creative way in which he handles the topic of salvation history. Here the challenge is: how to connect the everyday experience of individual human beings to all the the different points in the broad span of the history of salvation, as portrayed by, and transmitted in, the Bible and Tradition. Ephrem could be said to employ two main approaches, through the use of everyday images, and through typological links made possible by the presence of the raze, latent in both Nature and Scripture. Before considering each of these briefly, it is important to be aware of two features of Ephrem’s way of thinking. The first concerns the distinction, familiar to all students of the history of religions, between historical and sacred time: for the former, the point in linear time of an event that is of primary concern, whereas for the latter, it is the salvific content of that event; this means that events in sacred time can be seen to be operative in historical time both in the past and in the future. The second feature concerns Ephrem’s use of the biblical concept of the corporate personality, with its ease of interchange between the individual and the collective; a dramatic example of this is provided by his statement: Through the First Adam who left Paradise everyone has left it. (Madrashe on Unleavened Bread 17:10)

The putting on and taking off of clothes is an activity that everyone is familiar with, and it is especially through the use of clothing imagery that Ephrem links together different key events in salvation history and shows how these are applicable to the experience of the individual Christian. It has already been seen that Ephrem speaks of God as having “put on” human language in the biblical text. Exactly the same metaphor is frequently used by Ephrem (and many other Syriac writers) to describe the incarnation, following the practice of the earliest Syriac translation of the Nicene Creed, where the Greek esarkothe, “he was enfleshed”, is rendered lbesh pagra, “he put on the body”. The choice of clothing imagery to denote the incarnation happened to fit excellently with the use of the same imagery in connection with two traditions taken over by early Syriac writers from Jewish sources: prior to the Fall, Adam and Eve were understood as having been clothed in glory or light, but at the Fall this was lost; and, secondly, at the eschaton the righteous will once again be clothed in glory or light. Out of this inherited imagery Ephrem constructs what one might describe as a drama of salvation history in five main scenes. These can be set out schematically as follows:

Scene 1: Before the Fall Adam and Eve (humanity) live in Paradise (a mountain, as in Dante), where they are clothed in garments of glory, or light. They are created in an intermediary state, neither mortal nor immortal: having given them freewill, God wishes to allow them to use this, by giving them “a tiny commandment”, that is, not to eat of the fruit of a single tree.

Scene 2: At their failure to observe the “tiny commandment” – the Fall, in western terminology – they are stripped of their garments of glory, and become subject to mortality and its consequences. Paradise, from which they are now expelled, is

98

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

guarded by the cherub with a revolving sword (Gen. 3:24). From this point onwards, God’s aim is to re-clothe humanity in the lost garments of glory. In order to achieve this, however, it is important that the gift of freewill to humanity should not be infringed; indeed, human cooperation is essential.

Scene 3: As a means of disclosing his intention for humanity, God “puts on names”, that is, allows himself to be spoken of in human language in the Old Testament. This is in fact just a prelude to his ultimate act of self-emptying love towards humanity, when the divine Word “put on the body”, or, as Ephrem also expresses it, “he put on our body” (or even, “he put on us”); and to bring out the links between us and the experience of fallen Adam, “he put on Adam’s body”, or even “he put on Adam”. For Ephrem, there are three focal points of descent in the course of the Incarnation; these he describes as three successive wombs, of Mary, of the river Jordan at his baptism, and of Sheol, the abode of the departed, at the crucifixion. Of particular importance for what one could call Ephrem’s “theology of clothing” is the baptism, when “he put on the waters of baptism” (Madrashe on the Nativity 12:2). Scene 4: Christ’s baptism in the Jordan, together with his death and resurrection, constitutes the fountainhead and source for all Christian baptism. The link between the two is provided by the imagery of the garment of glory, which is understood as having been deposited in the Jordan waters at his baptism, and which is put on, in potential, by each individual Christian at baptism (where the invocation of the Holy Spirit in the course of the prayer sanctifying the water effectively provides the link in sacred time between the water of the baptismal font and that of the Jordan).

Scene 5: The garment of glory put on at baptism has to be preserved in purity if it is to become a reality at the eschaton, the final resurrection and judgement, when all the righteous will be clothed in glory, or light. In order to bring out the tension between potential (in this life) and reality (at the eschaton) of the garment of glory, Ephrem makes use of marriage imagery: baptism corresponds to betrothal of the soul to Christ, while the eschaton is described as the wedding feast (or, sometimes, the bridal chamber). In this connection Ephrem makes use of the Gospel parable of the Wedding Garment (Matthew 22:1–14): the garment is provided at baptism/betrothal, and needs to be preserved unsoiled until the eschaton/wedding. Ephrem of course never sets out the scenario all at once, as described above; rather, this is the dramatic framework that is implicit in the numerous passages where he makes use of the imagery of clothing in the context of salvation history. The nearest he comes to bringing all the different scenes together is perhaps to be found in the following: All these changes did the Merciful One make, stripping off glory and putting on a body; for He had devised a way to re-clothe Adam in that glory which Adam had stripped off. Christ was wrapped in swaddling clothes, corresponding to Adam’s leaves; Christ put on clothes, instead of Adam’s skins;

9. THEOLOGY THROUGH POETRY: THE EXAMPLE OF ST EPHREM

99

He was baptized for Adam’s sin, His body was embalmed for Adam’s death, He rose and raised up Adam in his glory. Blessed is He who descended, put on Adam and ascended! (Madrashe on the Nativity 23:13)

Ephrem’s second means of conveying the interconnections between the events of salvation history and the experience of the individual Christian is through his description of how the raze, the symbols/mysteries hidden in Scripture and Nature, function. These provide the connections between the Old Testament and the New Testament, between the New Testament and the life of the Church, and between this world and the heavenly world. In another Madrasha on the Nativity (8:4) Ephrem writes: Blessed be the Merciful One who saw the sword beside Paradise barring the way to the Tree of Life; He came and took to Himself a body which was wounded so that, by the opening of His side, He might open up the way into Paradise.

By his mention of the opening of Christ’s side, Ephrem is of course alluding to the piercing of the side of Christ in John 19:34. This single verse could be said to be one of the most important verses in the New Testament from the point of view of the typological function of the raze, or symbols/mysteries, since it provides a “resting place” or “haven” for a large number of different raze. In this verse Ephrem perceives pointers back to the Genesis narrative of Paradise and the Fall, and forward to the sacramental life of the Church. In the passage just quoted, the lance that pierced Christ’s side understood as having removed, in sacred time, the sword of the cherub guarding Paradise, thus making possible the return of humanity to Paradise. This is not, however, just a return to a primordial Paradise, for the way is now opened up to the Tree of Life. This Tree of Life is none other than Christ himself, who makes his fruits available through the sacraments already in this life: With the blade of the cherub’s sword was the path to the Tree of Life shut off, but to the peoples the Lord of that Tree has given Himself as food.

Whereas Eden’s other trees were provided for the former Adam to eat, for us the very Planter of the Garden has become the food for our souls.

Whereas we had left that Garden along with Adam when he left it behind, now that the sword has been removed by the lance,

100

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD we may return there. (Madrashe preserved in Armenian 49:9–11)

Just as “we left the Garden along with Adam”, so too, at the piercing of Christ's side and the issuing from it of blood and water, Adam is described as now returning, in sacred time, to Paradise: There came forth from Christ water; Adam washed, revived, and returned to Paradise. (Madrashe on Nisibis 39:7)

A whole set of different, but related, insights are perceived by Ephrem’s “luminous eye of faith” in the side of Christ, which is both contrasted with, and compared to, Adam’s side, or rib, which gave miraculous birth to Eve. Extrapolating from Ephrem’s many passing references, one can see that he perceives four different inter-relationships:

– The First Adam gives “virginal” birth to the First Eve;

– the Second Eve (Mary) gives virginal birth to the Second Adam (Christ);

– the Second Adam (Christ) gives “virginal” birth to the Sacraments, or, expressed differently, to the Church, his Bride; – and (implicitly) the Church gives “virginal” birth to Christians at baptism.

These multiple understandings of the typological associations that this single verse, John 19:34, evokes, serve as it were as resonating strings for whatever aspect is uppermost in a particular passage of Ephrem. Ephrem also uses Christ-Adam typology as a means of expressing the ultimate aim of the divine plan of salvation. In the language of the Greek Fathers, this would be described as theosis, or divinisation. Ephrem, however, uses the language of typology to say the same thing: Freewill succeeded in making Adam’s beauty ugly, for he, a man, sought to become a god. Grace, however, made beautiful his deformities and God came to become a man. Divinity flew down to draw humanity up,

for the Son had made beautiful the servant’s deformities and so he has become a god, just as he desired! (Madrashe on Virginity 48:15–18)

In another passage Ephrem expresses the same idea epigrammatically, but this time introducing the theme of exchange: He gave us divinity, we gave Him humanity. (Madrashe on Faith 5:17)

9. THEOLOGY THROUGH POETRY: THE EXAMPLE OF ST EPHREM

101

Ephrem’s use of poetry as his preferred mode of theological expression allows him to employ everyday images and sets of inter-relationships and interconnections in order to bring out the dynamic quality of the salvific process brought about by the Incarnation. This is something that could not readily be achieved by resorting to the use of carefully defined terms, since the resulting picture would inevitably be much more static in character. Ephrem’s choice of paradox, rather than definition, allows him to achieve different states of creative tension. One might say that paradox for Ephrem plays a role similar to that of the apophthegma of the Desert Fathers, or the Buddhist koan: it is an invitation to meditation and wonder. The raze, or symbols/mysteries, serve the same sort of purpose; as the French philosopher Paul Ricoeur said, “La symbole donne à penser”. But these symbols or mysteries serve another important purpose: they point to relationships between different events in the course of salvation history, between the Old Covenant and the New, between the material world and the Kingdom of heaven, and between human beings and the rest of creation: everything is interlinked; nothing, and nobody, exists in a vacuum. Meaning is to be found in everything, although it requires the inner eye of faith, illumined by the light of the Holy Spirit, to discover this meaning. The meaning, once perceived, is multi-faceted, it is never fixed, but will vary according to time, situation and circumstance; however, what Ephrem calls the underlying “truth”, or divine reality, to which the variable meanings point, always remains the same. It is an essentially holistic theological view of the universe that Ephrem offers, and one that implicitly points to the great need for responsible action on the part of each individual. His theological approach, through the medium of poetry, not only provides one that is complementary to that of the academic theologian, but it is also one that, like the visual arts and music, has the ability to speak to everyone.

10

ST EPHREM AND HIS ‘SEA OF SYMBOLS’ * In his ‘Le défi symbolique’ Charles Bernard rightly stressed that the two different approaches to theology, the one ‘par voie de démonstration’ and the other ‘par voie symbolique’ need to be seen, not as rivals, but as complementary: there exists ‘aucune opposition, ni encore moins contradiction entre les deux formes de la théologie, mais complémentarité’. 1 Complementarity implies a proper balance between the two approaches, and this is something that has been lacking, above all in the western theological tradition. An indication of this lack of balance is to be found in the surprise we feel at the idea that poetry, rather than prose, can be a valid vehicle for theology. Of course religious poetry, that is poetry on specifically religious topics, is readily familiar, but what we are not led to expect is the idea that a well-thought out theological vision can be better expressed in poetry rather than in prose. This, however, is precisely what we encounter in the writings of the deacon St Ephrem of Nisibis (modern Nusaybin on the Turkish-Syrian frontier), who died in 373, the same year as St Athanasius. Pope Benedict XV’s proclamation, in 1920, of St Ephrem as a Doctor of the universal Church can be seen in some ways to have been prophetic, for it was not until the third quarter of the 20th century that Ephrem’s poetic cycles became available in reliable editions, thanks to the labours of Dom Edmund Beck. 2 Whereas previously (at least among English scholars) Ephrem had received little or no appreciation as a thinker, in 1975 the publication of Robert Murray’s Symbols of Church and Kingdom: a study in early Syriac tradition, 3 led to major change of attitude: here, in Murray’s book, for the first time Ephrem is seen as a theologian on a par with his Greek

Originally published in Italian in M.G. Muzj (ed.), Simbolo cristiano e linguaggio umano (Vita e Pensiero, Milan, 2013), 91–106. 1 Ch. Bernard, ‘Le défi symbolique’, Kerygma 14 (1980), 64–5. 2 A bibliographical guide to Ephrem’s writings, and to the translations that are available, can be found in chapter 24, below. 3 Cambridge, 1975. Important also are his articles ‘The theory of symbolism in St Ephrem’s theology’, Parole de l’Orient 6/7 (1975/6), pp. 1–20, and ‘Der Dichter als Exeget: der hl. Ephräm und die heutige Exegese’, Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 100 (1978), pp. 484–94. *

103

104

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

contemporaries, albeit writing, not only in a different language, but also in a very different idiom. Since 1975 there have been two major studies of Ephrem’s symbolic theology, by T. Bou Mansour, La pensée symbolique de saint Ephrem le syrien, 4 and K den Biesen’s Simple and Bold: Ephrem’s Art of Symbolic Thought. 5 In The Luminous Eye: the Spiritual World Vision of St Ephrem 6 I attempted a more general presentation of his approach, and there is now a considerable number of more specialized studies of different aspects of his writings and thought. 7 In the present contribution my aim is simply to try to outline something of Ephrem’s theological thought, and how it functions. Ephrem never expresses his theological understanding in a single place, and it is only once one is familiar with his writings as a whole that one gains an awareness that, underlying his poetry there is a carefully thought out vision of how it is possible for humanity to perceive something of the divine reality, and how the material world is connected with the spiritual world. For Ephrem, at a fundamental level, everything and everyone within creation are interconnected, and the reason for this state of interconnectedness lies in the fact of divine creation. The interconnections are thus multi-dimensional, and at their most straightforward level, they are, as it were, both vertical and horizontal: vertical, between Creator and created, the divine world and the human world; and horizontal, between individual members of humanity, and between humanity and the rest of the created world, both animate and inanimate. One might compare this to an elaborate spider’s web, into which one essential thread has been interwoven, that of salvation history, running from creation to the eschaton. Before exploring any further how Ephrem’s theological vision functions, it is essential to be aware of his basic presuppositions. Fundamental, of course, is his belief that there exists a divine world and a divine reality (which he simply designates ‘Truth’), alongside the material world. Between God and creation there is a ‘chasm’ (a term he derives from Luke 16:26), which can only be crossed in one direction, by God. Thus for humanity to become aware of God, an act of divine selfrevelation needs first to have taken place, otherwise humanity would have no means of gaining any knowledge at all of the Godhead: Bibliothèque de l’Université Saint-Esprit 16; Kaslik, 1988. Piscataway NJ, 2006. 6 Rome, 1985; 2nd edn Kalamazoo, 1992. There are translations into Italian (L’occhio luminoso, by M. Campatelli; Rome, 1999), French (L’oeil de lumière, by D. Rance; Spiritualité Orientale 50, 1991), Romanian (by I. Ica; Sibiu, 1998), Swedish (by D. Braw and S. Hidal; 2010); and Arabic (by J. Tarzi; 1992). There are also Russian and Danish translations in preparation. See also my ‘Teologia in poesia: l’esempio di sant’Ephrem’ (tr. M. Campatelli), introduction to Vladimir Truhlar, Teologia in poesia, I (Rome, 2002), pp. 7–23; English original in chapter 9, above. 7 A detailed bibliography is provided by K. den Biesen, Bibliography of Ephrem the Syrian (Giove in Umbria, 2002); 2nd edition 2011. 4 5

10. ST EPHREM AND HIS ‘SEA OF SYMBOLS’

105

If God had not wished to disclose Himself to us there would not have been anything in creation able to elucidate anything at all about Him. (Hymns on Faith 44:7).

The various ways in which this self-disclosure takes place will be described below. The existence of this ‘chasm’, and the fact that it can only be traversed in one direction, means that any attempt to describe any aspect of the God that lies the far side of the chasm is not only impossible, but also – when it does take place – both presumptuous and blasphemous: A person who is capable of investigating becomes the container of what he investigates; a knowledge which is capable of containing the Omniscient is greater than Him, for it has proved capable of measuring the whole of Him. A person who investigates the Father and the Son is thus greater than Them! Far be it, then, and something anathema, that the Father and Son should be investigated while dust and ashes exalts itself! (Hymns on Faith 9:16)

(In the background of Ephrem’s words here lies the Arian controversy, and the question of the relationship of the Son to the Father). Definitions (etymologically, the provision of boundaries) 8 and carefully defined terminology are thus, for Ephrem, not an appropriate tool for theological language about God where any aspect of the Godhead lies beyond the ‘chasm’. Instead, Ephrem proceeds by means of paradox, which in turn sparks off wonder, which provides the entry into some sort of intuition about the divine reality (‘Truth’). His approach can perhaps best be grasped by visualizing a circle with a point in the centre, the point representing ‘Truth’, or the divine reality: whereas an analytical approach to theology would seek too provide a definition of the central point, locating it exactly, Ephrem chooses to provide a whole series of paradoxes at opposite points on the circumference of the circle: the point where all the lines joining up the paradoxical opposites meet indicates where ‘Truth’ lies. Two further presuppositions need to be kept in mind: the interchange between individual and collective, and the existence of two times, historical and sacred. Frequently the modern reader of Ephrem will find the poet moving from the individual to the collective, and the reverse, with what may seem a disconcerting rapidity: Adam is at one moment the individual of the Genesis narrative, and then a representative of humanity in general. Thus when Ephrem employs his favourite metaphor for the Incarnation, he de8

In Syriac a ‘definition’ of faith is similarly a thoma, or ‘boundary’.

106

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

scribes the Divine Word sometimes as ‘putting on the body’, but at others as ‘putting on the body of Adam’. The modern reader also needs, when reading Ephrem, to keep in mind the difference between historical and sacred time: whereas the former is linear, and there is a ‘before’ and an ‘after’ to every event in historical time, this is not the case with sacred, or liturgical time, where it is the content, and specifically the salvific content, of the event that is of prime significance. Thus a salvific event that takes place in historical time (and geographical space) can in sacred time be effective at any time, before as well as after its occurrence in historical time (and space). This quality of sacred time explains why Ephrem, along with many early Christian writers, gives such importance to the theme of the Descent into Sheol, the world of the dead, for this is understood as Christ’s entry into sacred time and space, thus indicating that the Incarnation is effective throughout time and space. One of the ‘tools’ employed by Ephrem for theological discourse has already been mentioned, the use of paradox. Three further such tools can be isolated, the first of which is in many ways the most important, since it provides the key to Ephrem’s understanding of how it is possible for humanity to come to a knowledge of God.

MYSTERY/SYMBOL (RĀZĀ)

In the Syriac New Testament the term rāzā translates the Greek mustērion, ‘mystery’, and the term (of Iranian origin) is already to be found in the Aramaic text of Daniel, where it basically means a ‘secret’. By Ephrem’s time the word has been enriched by a number of further connotations. As with the Greek ta mustēria, so too the Syriac plural, rāzē, frequently denotes the Eucharistic mysteries, and can sometimes be translated as ‘the Sacraments’ (though Syriac would not normally employ the term rāzē for the remaining (Western) Sacraments). Much more frequently, however, Ephrem uses the term rāzā in a different sense and in contexts where it is usually more helpful to render the Syriac term by ‘symbol’ – but with the essential proviso that ‘symbol’ should here be understood in its strong (and Patristic) sense, and not in its more modern weakened sense, where the symbol is understood as something essentially different from what it symbolizes. By contrast, for Ephrem and the Church Fathers, the symbol is somehow ontologically connected with what it symbolizes; the rāzā/symbol possesses a ‘hidden power’, or ‘hidden meaning’. In some ways Ephrem’s rāzē correspond in their function to Maximus the Confessor’s logoi: both give meaning to, and provide the rationale for, something. Rāzē thus serve, for Ephrem, as the links between the material world and the divine reality, the ‘Truth’. Rāzē are the means by which God reveals something of himself to humanity, but in order that this revelation should not impose itself on anyone, and in order to maintain the gift to humanity of freewill, these rāzē are hidden, and so need to be discovered: Lord, Your symbols are everywhere, yet You are hidden from everywhere. (Hymns on Faith 4:9).

10. ST EPHREM AND HIS ‘SEA OF SYMBOLS’ And:

107

Any kind of adornment that is the result of force is not genuine, for it is merely imposed. Herein lies the greatness of God’s gift, that someone can adorn himself of his own accord, for God has removed all compulsion. (Nisibene Hymns 16:11)

Rāzē are to be found both in Creation and in the Bible: ‘Nature’ and ‘the Book’ serve as God as his two ‘witnesses’ (John 8:17): In his book Moses described the creation of the natural world, so that both the natural world and his Book might testify to the Creator: the natural world, through man’s use of it, the Book, through his reading of it. They are witnesses which reach everywhere, they are to be found at all times, present at every hour, rebuking the unbeliever who denies the Creator. (Hymns on Paradise 5:2)

While the initiative of making available these rāzē, or pointers to a knowledge of himself, has been taken by God, it remains up to each individual human being, exercising his or her own freewill, whether or not to make use of this possibility of acquiring a knowledge of God. In order to explain how human beings can begin to perceive these rāzē which lie latent everywhere, Ephrem uses the image of the interior eye. According to his understanding of optics the physical eye is enabled to see by being filled with light from outside, and Ephrem understands the interior eye as functioning in the same way, except that it is faith, not light, which enables it to see. Faith needs to be let into the interior eye by an act of the freewill; at first, all that is necessary is just enough to gain a glimpse of the existence of rāzē, and then this glimpse will in turn serve to nurture the faith so that it can perceive more. Thus by means of this reciprocal process, little by little the interior eye becomes fuller of faith and so is enabled to perceive rāzē more and more clearly, so that eventually this interior eye has become fully ‘luminous’, full of the light of faith. Indeed, at this stage of enlightenment, where the rāzē are perceived with their full meaning, the human mind may be overwhelmed by the wealth of what has thus been disclosed of the divine reality, and Ephrem at one point humorously exclaims: This Jesus has made so many rāzē that I have fallen into their waves! (Nisibene Hymns 39:17)

108

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

Once they have initially been perceived, rāzē give rise to a response of wonder and praise, which itself leads to spiritual growth: Praise does not make God any the greater, it is our mouths that are thereby exalted. (Verse homilies on Nicomedia III.191)

In a poem where he likens the Eucharist to the marriage feast at Cana (John 2:1–11), Ephrem laments: I have invited You, Lord, to a wedding-feast of song, but the wine – the utterance of praise – at our feast is lacking. You are the guest who filled the jars with good wine, fill my mouth with Your praise! (Hymns on Faith 14:1)

This ‘wine’ of praise is transformative, but it is by means of ‘Fire and the Spirit’ that spiritual transformation is effected, and here the paradigmatic models for any such transformation are set out succinctly by Ephrem in another poem on the Eucharist: See, Fire and Spirit are in the womb of her who bore You, see, Fire and Spirit are in the river in which You were baptized. Fire and Spirit are in our baptismal font, in the Bread and the Cup are Fire and Holy Spirit. (Hymns on Faith 10:17)

The parallelism implicit here between Mary and the Eucharist is significant, in that Mary’s response to the Annunciation, resulting in her conception of the Divine Word, is seen as a model for the response of the individual Christian at the Eucharist, where the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the Bread and Wine is understood as analogous to the coming of the Holy Spirit upon Mary (Luke 1:35): in the case of the individual Christian, the partaking of these Mysteries (rāzē) should lead to a spiritual birthgiving.

IMAGERY AND METAPHOR

Another important tool for purposes of theological discourse, alongside the term rāzā, is the imaginative use of imagery and metaphor in the narration of salvation history. Ephrem will have inherited from the earlier Syriac Christian tradition the phrase, already encountered, of ‘he put on the body’, to describe the Incarnation. 9 Ephrem exploits this everyday image of putting on and taking off one’s clothes in order to describe the entire course of salvation history. Though Ephrem does not For the use of clothing imagery in early Syriac writers, see further ‘Clothing metaphors as a means of theological expression in Syriac tradition’, in my Studies in Syriac Christianity (Aldershot, 1992), chapter XI, and ‘The Robe of Glory: a biblical image in the Syriac tradition’, The Way 39 (1999), pp. 247–59. 9

10. ST EPHREM AND HIS ‘SEA OF SYMBOLS’

109

himself speak of it as a ‘drama’, his vision of salvation history might well be called a drama in five Acts: Act I, At their creation Adam and Eve are clothed in a ‘garment’ or ‘robe of light’ (or, ‘of glory’), but at their misuse of freewill and their disobedience of what Ephrem describes as God’s ‘tiny commandment’ not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, they were stripped of this garment of light. Act II After the Fall, the entire aim of God is to re-clothe humanity in the primordial robe of glory, while all the time respecting the gift to humanity of freewill. From the beginning rāzē are present everywhere, as potential pointers to, and disclosers of, ‘Truth’, and then in the Old Testament God ‘puts on names’, that is, he allows himself to be described in human terms. Thus, referring to the anthropomorphic language used of God in the Old Testament, Ephrem explains: Let us give thanks to God who clothed Himself in the names of the human body’s various parts: Scripture refers to His ‘ears’, to teach us that He listens to us, it speaks of His ‘eyes’, to show that He sees us. It was just the names of such things that He put on, and, although in His true Being there is no ‘wrath’ or ‘regret’, yet He put on these names too because of our weakness. (Hymns on Faith 31:1)

(Ephrem, who has a gentle sense of humour, goes on to compare God’s attempts to teach humanity about himself to someone trying to teach a parrot to talk, by using a mirror, so that the parrot thinks that the voice talking to him is another parrot). Act III, Eventually God goes further and even puts on the human body: God’s Majesty that had clothed Itself in all sorts of similitudes saw that humanity did not want to find salvation through this assistance, so He sent His Beloved One who, instead of the borrowed similitudes with which God’s Majesty had previously clothed Itself, clothed Himself in real limbs, as the First-Born, and was mingled in with humanity; He gave what belonged to Him, and took what belonged to us, so that this intermingling of His might give Life to our dead state. (Hymns against Heresies 32:9).

In the course of his incarnate life, at his baptism in the Jordan, Christ deposits the ‘robe of glory’ in the Jordan’s waters, thus making it potentially available again for human beings. Act IV, At each Christian baptism, the baptised puts on, from the baptismal font (aptly sometimes itself called the ‘Jordan’), the ‘robe of glory’. This is done in potential, as a ‘pledge’, for the reality will only take place at the Eschaton – provided that the individual Christian has preserved this ‘marriage garment’ (as it is often referred to, with the parable of Matthew 21:1–14 in mind) in an unsullied state. In a baptismal hymn under Ephrem’s name the newly baptized are addressed: O children of the baptismal font,

110

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD babes who without spot have put on Fire and Spirit, preserve the glorious robe that you have put on from the water. (Epiphany Hymns 4:19)

Act V, It is only at the Eschaton that the righteous, who have preserved their ‘marriage garment’ in purity, find themselves clothed in reality in the ‘robe of glory’ (which could also be translated ‘robe of praise’): Among the saints none is naked for they have put on glory; nor is there any clad in fig leaves, or standing in shame, for they have found, through our Lord, the robe that belonged to Adam and Eve. (Hymns on Paradise 6:9)

Ephrem is emphatic that the biblical text must be understood and interpreted in the right way, if it is to serve as a source of the knowledge of God. Thus the metaphors that God allows to be used of himself are not to be taken literally: If someone concentrates his attention solely on the metaphors used of God’s Majesty, he abuses and misrepresents that Majesty by means of those metaphors with which God has clothed Himself for humanity’s own benefit, and that person is ungrateful to the Grace which has bent down its stature to the level of human childishness; even though God has nothing in common with it, He has clothed Himself in the likeness of humanity. (Hymns on Paradise 11:6)

Equally important for Ephrem is the polyvalence of the biblical text: whereas on a historical level the biblical text may (at least in theory) have a single ‘correct’ interpretation, this does not apply on the level of symbolic exegesis: the interior spiritual understanding of any particular biblical passage may be capable of many different interpretations. In a prose work Ephrem exclaims: Who is capable of comprehending the immensity of what is to be discovered in a single one of Your utterances? For we leave behind in it far more than we take from it – just like thirsty people drinking from a fountain.

The facets of His words are more numerous than the faces of those who learn from them. God depicted His words with many beauties, so that each of those who learn from them can examine that aspect of them which he likes. And God has hidden within His words all sorts of treasures, so that each of us can be enriched by them from whatever aspects we meditate on. …

10. ST EPHREM AND HIS ‘SEA OF SYMBOLS’

111

Anyone who encounters Scripture should not suppose that a single one of its riches is the only one to exist; rather, he should realize that he himself is only capable of discovering that one out of the many riches that exist in it.

(Commentary on the Diatessaron I:18, 19)

At the same time, it is essential to approach the biblical text in the right way: only then will it disclose its hidden meanings: Your fountain, Lord, is hidden from the person who does not thirst for You. Your treasury is empty to the person who rejects You. Love is the treasurer of Your heavenly treasure store. (Hymns on Faith 32:3)

Love, however, cannot be truly effective if it is not accompanied by ‘Truth’, that is, a starting point in orthodox belief, without which the vision of the interior eye of faith would be distorted: Truth and Love are wings that cannot be separated, for Truth without Love is not able to fly, so too, Love without Truth is not able to soar up, for their yoke is one of harmony. (Hymns on Faith 20:12)

The rāzē in Nature can likewise be polyvalent; thus Ephrem in a famous series of meditations on the Pearl (Hymns on Faith, 81–85) sees the Pearl as a symbol of Christ, the Kingdom, the Church, Faith, the Virgin Birth, the Crucifixion, and humanity’s lost Image in search of which Christ dives down. 10

TYPOLOGY

Just as rāzē serve as indicators of interconnections between the material world and the divine reality, so too ‘types’ (tupsē) function in a similar way, especially in the context of the biblical text. Ephrem makes abundant use of typology; thus, like many other early Christian writers, he develops Paul’s First Adam – Second Adam typology in a great variety of different ways. More distinctive is Ephrem’s introduction of this typology into the context of John 19:34, the piercing of the side of Christ, a verse which could be described as a centre point around which Ephrem spins a delicate spider’s web of typological interpretations. Reduced to a prosaic form, the typological associations that Ephrem discovers in this verse point to a series of miraculous birthgivings, linking primordial time with the actual experience of individual Christians: 10

There is a deliberate word play here, for the Syriac verb also means ‘to be baptized’.

112

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD The First Adam’s side gives miraculous birth to the First Eve; the Second Eve (Mary) gives miraculous birth to the Second Adam; 11 the Second Adam’s side gives miraculous birth to the Sacraments (which in turn can be represented by the Church, or by the Church as the Bride of Christ); the Church then gives miraculous birth to Christians in the baptismal font.

Alongside these miraculous birthgivings, Ephrem also contrasts the lance which pierced Christ’s side with the sword which guarded Paradise, serving to keep out the banished Adam and Eve/humanity. The lance removes the sword, making possible for humanity to re-enter Paradise. In one of a series of hymns where he introduces Death and Satan as lamenting over Christ’s death and descent into the underworld of the dead, Ephrem has Death say: The sword that guarded the Tree of Life gave me joy, … for it kept Adam from Life; … But at the sword by which Jesus was struck, I suffered: he was struck, and I gave a cry of lament: from him there issued water and blood; Adam washed, was revived, and returned to Paradise. (Nisibene Hymns 39:7) 12

The return to Paradise is not just to the situation of Adam and Eve before the Fall, but to an eschatological Paradise where access to the Tree of Life itself is now granted, and the human person is raised to a higher state (as will become apparent, below). Ephrem’s aim, when he brings out the typological links between different passages and the life of the Church is not just to provide a display of imaginative interpretation (which he certainly does); rather, his prime intention is to induce in his readers a sense of wonder and awareness of the multiple spiritual understandings of which any particular passage in question is capable. It was his own sense of wonder at the verse John 19:34, which led him to address Christ directly in the course of his Commentary on the Diatessaron and exclaim: I ran to all of Your limbs, and from the I received every kind of gift. Through the side pierced by the sword I entered the Garden fenced in by the sword.

Let us enter in through that side which was pierced, since we were stripped naked by the counsel of the rib that was extracted. The fire that burnt in Adam, burnt him in that rib of his; for this reason the side of the Second Adam has been In contrasting Second Eve with First Eve, Ephrem describes Mary as conceiving through the ear , that is, in obedience to Gabriel’s message, in contrast to the disobedience of Eve, into whose ear the serpent is described as having poured poison; see, for example, Hymns on the Church, 49:7. 12 In this stanza Ephrem also introduces the sword of Phineas; for the sake of simplicity, I have omitted those parts of the stanza referring to this. 11

10. ST EPHREM AND HIS ‘SEA OF SYMBOLS’

113

pierced, and from it comes forth a flow of water to quench the fire of the First Adam. (Commentary on the Diatessaron XXI:10).

THE HIDDEN AND THE REVEALED

Throughout Ephrem’s writings, and above all in his poetry there is a dialectic between the hidden (kasyātā) and the revealed (galyātā), that is, between the transcendence and the immanence of God. Here, there are two perspectives, one subjective, that of humanity, and the other objective, that of ‘Truth’, or the divine reality. From the human perspective something of the hiddenness of God is potentially revealed in the rāzē/symbols and types, and it is left to each individual to benefit, or not, from these modes of divine self-revelation, depending on this clarity of his or her interior eye, the inbuilt element in human beings which alone is capable of this mode of perception. Then at the Incarnation, the Divine Word, by becoming a human being, can on the one hand be described as having been completely revealed, as in the following passage: Who will not give thanks to the Hidden One, most hidden of all, who came to open revelation (galyutā), most open of all, for He put on a body, and other bodies felt Him – though minds never grasped Him. (Hymns on Faith 19:7)

Yet at the same time his divinity remains hidden:

Who, Lord, can gaze on Your hiddenness (kasyutā) which has come to revelation (galyutā)? Yes, Your obscurity has come to manifestation and notification; Your concealed Being has come out into the open, without limitation. Your awesome Self has come to the hands of those who seized You. All this has happened to You, Lord, because You became a human being. Praises to Him who sent You! Yet who will not fear because, even though Your Epiphany is revealed, and so too Your human birth, Your birth from the Father remains unattainable: it has baffled all those who investigate it. (Hymns on Faith 51:2–3)

By contrast, from the other perspective, it is only the divine reality (Ephrem’s ‘Truth’) where God’s true Being (Ituta) is fully revealed, while rāzē are now things hidden, kasyātā, serving as pointers to what will, at the Eschaton, be fully revealed. Reverting to the human perspective, Ephrem speaks of two kinds of knowledge of God:

114

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD one of what is revealed, the other of what is hidden; knowledge with respect to His revealed state (galyutā), and non-knowledge with respect to His hiddenness (kasyutā). (Verse homilies on Faith VI.289–92).

What he means by ‘non-knowledge’ (which is evidently more than just ‘ignorance’) is explained in a prose text: 13 The sum of our knowledge (sc. of God) is this: to know that we do not know anything (sc. of his hidden Being), for if we realize that we do not know, then we vanquish error through this knowledge of ours.

(Letter to Hypatius, ed. Overbeck, p.42)

In his Commentary on Genesis (II.3) Ephrem sets out his understanding of what would have happened if Adam and Eve had not disobeyed the commandment – designed as a test of their freewill – not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil: had they resisted the serpent’s prompting and overcome in their being tested, they would have been rewarded by God with ‘two crowns’, 14 in that they would have been granted access, not only to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, but also to the Tree of Life. From the former ‘they would have acquired infallible knowledge’, and from the latter ‘they would have received immortal life. They would have acquired divinity in humanity’. It was by means of the misleading promise of becoming divine beings that the serpent had been able to delude them; nevertheless, the divinisation of Adam/humanity remained the ultimate aim of God’s plan of salvation history. Ephrem expresses this succinctly: The Most High knew that Adam had wanted to become a god, so He sent His Son who clothed Himself in Adam/humanity in order to grant him his desire. (Nisibene Hymns 69:12)

And less tersely elsewhere:

Freewill succeeded in making Adam’s beauty ugly, for he, a man, sought to become a god. Grace, however, made beautiful his deformities and God came to become Man. Divinity flew down to draw humanity up, for the Son had made beautiful the deformities of the servant, and so he has become a god, just as he desired. (Hymns on Virginity 48:15–18)

Here, as sometimes elsewhere, Ephrem appears to anticipate ideas found in the Dionysian Corpus, though there, of course, they are expressed in a very different way. 14 Thus in Ephrem’s corresponding verse treatment, Hymns on Paradise 12:17. 13

10. ST EPHREM AND HIS ‘SEA OF SYMBOLS’

115

Whereas the Second Adam is God by nature, the First Adam becomes a god ‘by grace’ (Hymns on Faith 29:1). Although the terms ‘divinisation/theōsis’ are never used by Ephrem, what he is expressing is very the same thing as his Greek exact contemporary, St Athanasius, whose words ‘God became man so that man might become god’ are paralleled by Ephrem’s ‘He gave us divinity, we gave Him humanity’ (Hymns on Faith 5:17), where the idea of ‘exchange’ is expressed more directly. The key to this exchange is love, with God taking the initiative in crossing the ‘chasm’ between Creator and creation; on the human side the response likewise needs to be one of love, if the ‘exchange’ is to become a reality. In order to bring out the central importance of love in effecting this exchange, Ephrem employs bridal imagery: Christ is ‘the true Bridegroom’, and the bride is seen, not only as the Church, but simultaneously also as the soul of each individual Christian. This is expressed most dramatically in a poem (whose opening has already been quoted), where Ephrem portrays the Eucharist as a wedding feast: Jesus, You were invited to the wedding feast of others [sc. at Cana], here is Your own pure and fair wedding-feast: gladden Your rejuvenated people, for Your guests too, Lord, need Your songs; let Your harp utter!

The soul is Your bride, the body Your bridal chamber, Your guests are the senses and the thoughts, and if a single body is a wedding feast for You, how great is Your banquet for the whole Church! (Hymns on Faith 14:4–5)

Ephrem here, as frequently elsewhere, brings together the collective (the Church) and the individual (the soul): the Church, who is seen as the Bride of Christ miraculously born from his pierced side (John 19:34) provides the paradigm which has already been assured in salvation history in sacred time; on the level of the individual in historical time, however, the response, one way or another, remains a matter for the exercise of human free will. The Eucharistic wedding feast of the Ephrem’s poem is seen as an anticipation, taking place in historical time, of the heavenly Wedding Feast and entry into Bridal Chamber at the Eschaton, 15 an anticipation that is made possible by sacred time. Elsewhere Ephrem makes use of the separation in time that existed in his day between betrothal and marriage: ‘betrothal’ is understood as taking place at baptism, and this is when the ‘robe of glory’ is put in ‘in pledge’. The ‘robe of glory’ also repEphrem uses the image of both Wedding Feast and Bridal Chamber to describe the Kingdom of Heaven; the latter derives from an early Syriac exegetical tradition of the Parable of the Virgins (Matthew 25) according to which the Wise Virgins enter, not the Wedding Feast, but he Bridal Chamber itself. For some further details of this tradition, see my ‘The Bridal Chamber of Light: a distinctive feature of the Syriac liturgical tradition’, The Harp (Kottayam) 18 (2005), 179–91. 15

116

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

resents the ‘wedding garment’ of Matthew 21 which needs to be kept clean, in readiness for the heavenly Wedding Feast which takes place at the Eschaton, in sacred time. It is precisely because the Wedding Feast, and entry into the ‘Bridal Chamber of joys’ take place in sacred time that Ephrem, in the poem quoted above, is able to see this eschatological Wedding Feast as being, as it were, anticipated in the historical time of the celebration of the Eucharistic Liturgy. *

By employing the tools of paradox and rāzā, and by the re-telling of all the main episodes of salvation history, while making use of everyday images and pointing out typological connections, Ephrem offers to his readers a way of discovering meaning in everything, both in Nature and in the Biblical text, by relating the material world to the spiritual world, and by indicating to them how to open up for themselves new doors of perception. The paradoxes provide challenges, like Buddhist koans. Instead of logical opposites which cancel each other out, the paradox serves to stimulate further exploration and the entry into a different dimension of thought. The symbol too, ‘donne à penser’, as Ricoeur put it, 16 and invites contemplation, but Ephrem’s rāzē do more: they not only serve as pointers to a hidden divine reality, but they also (in that each rāzā is ontologically linked with what it symbolizes), at the same time possess a revelatory quality, and the more clearly that the rāzā is perceived by the interior eye of the individual, the more it reveals. Furthermore, by refusing to impose any analytic formulation of faith, however, carefully worded, Ephrem is not only refusing to provide anything that could be seen as defining, or putting boundaries (Latin fines) on, some aspect of the Godhead, but he is also refusing to impose on his readers any dogmatic definition that they must accept; instead, he is offering a way (not the way) of finding meaning in the material world, and of perceiving how it is related to the divine reality (his ‘Truth’), while at the same time respecting their free will. As André de Halleux once pointed out, ‘Éphrem ne veut pas expliquer le système de l’univers; il cherche à vivre (and one might here interpolate: and to show how it is possible to live) le mystère de l’amour de Dieu pour l’homme’. 17

A comparison with Ricoeur was already made by R. Murray in his ‘Theory of symbolism’, pp. 16–7 [see note 3] 17 A. de Halleux, ‘Saint Éphrem le Syrien’, Revue théologique de Louvain 14 (1983), 328–55, here p. 346. 16

11

ST EPHREM THE SYRIAN ON READING SCRIPTURE * INTRODUCTION

Although St Ephrem was proclaimed a Doctor of the universal Church by Pope Benedict XV in 1920, he remains for most people today much less well-known than his contemporaries, St Athanasius and the great Cappadocian Fathers, St Basil, St Gregory of Nyssa and St Gregory of Nazianzus. There are two main reasons for this: St Ephrem wrote, not in Greek, but in the less familiar Syriac (a dialect of Aramaic, the language of Jesus); and secondly, his most important theological writings are in verse, rather than in prose which, according to modern expectations, is the expected medium of serious theology. St Ephrem happens to be a profound theologian as well as a wonderful poet. Although his poetry certainly does not aim to provide any systematic presentation, nevertheless it is underpinned by a carefully thought-out theological understanding. 1 Before turning to what St Ephrem has to say on how to approach reading the Bible, two preliminary points should be made. (1) Both the sixth-century Life of St Ephrem and the iconographical tradition give a misleading impression of the man: in both these traditions St Ephrem is presented as a monk (and in the Life as a hermit too). This portrait is certainly anachronistic, for knowledge of Egyptian monasticism did not reach eastern Syria until after Ephrem’s death. According to St Jerome, writing only some twenty years after Ephrem’s death, Ephrem was in fact a deacon. Most of his life was spent in Nisibis, on the eastern border of the Roman Empire, but after that town was ceded to the Persians in the peace treaty of 363, the Christian population had to leave, and Originally published in Downside Review 438 (Jan. 2007), 37–50. A general introduction to St Ephrem can be found in my The Luminous Eye: the Spiritual World Vision of Saint Ephrem the Syrian (Cistercian Studies 124; Kalamazoo, 1992); also, S.H. Griffith, “A spiritual father for the whole Church: St Ephraem the Syrian”, Sobornost/Eastern Churches Review 20:2 (1998), 21–40 (also in the internet journal Hugoye 1:2 (1998) [http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye]). An excellent little book on the subject of the present paper is also by S.H. Griffith, ‘Faith adoring the Mystery’: Reading the Bible with St. Ephraem the Syrian (The Père Marquette Lecture in Theology 1997; Milwaukee, 1997). *

1

117

118

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

Ephrem ended up in Edessa (modern Urfa, in SE Turkey). It is likely that he was part of what has been {38} called the “proto-monastic” movement of the early Syriacspeaking Church, living a consecrated life within the Christian community, as one of the “Members of the Covenant” (bnay qyama), who probably undertook certain ascetic vows (understood as a qyama, or solemn agreement, with God) at adult baptism. 2 (2) Famous names often attract false attributions. Together with St John Chrysostom Ephrem enjoys the distinction of having a huge number of works attributed to him which were certainly not by him. This applies especially to writings transmitted under his name in Greek and Latin: of these, only a few are really translations from Syriac and genuinely by Ephrem. Needless to say, the following presentation of Ephrem’s approach to reading the Bible is based solely on Syriac works (mainly those in poetry) that are genuinely by him.

THE TWO APPROACHES

Ephrem speaks of two approaches to understanding the biblical text, the ‘factual’ and the ‘spiritual’. The former is focused on what one might call the exterior meaning of the text, while the latter is concerned with its interior meaning, that is, the spiritual reality of the divine world that lies hidden within the outer text. It is important to stress that the outer and inner meanings are essentially interrelated. A helpful analogy (to which I shall return later) is provided by the early seventeenthcentury poet George Herbert: A man that looks on glass on it may stay his eye, or, if he pleaseth, through it pass and then the heaven espy.

Ephrem provides both ‘factual’ and ‘spiritual’ interpretations, the former in his prose commentaries (those on Genesis and on part of Exodus) and the latter primarily in his poetry. Though his ‘factual’ reading of Scripture is for the most part very different from the approach of modern biblical scholarship, it does have some similarities to a ‘close reading’ of a biblical narrative, and his insights are often highly perceptive and intriguing; a marvellous example of this can be seen from his handling of Genesis 39, on Joseph and Potiphar’s wife. 3 Ephrem’s ‘spiritual’ approach, which corresponds approximately to the ‘anagogical’ approach of many {39} of the Greek and Latin Fathers, is concerned with a different mode of understanding, where the search is not for any form of historical truth, but rather for the underlying spiritual reality, in other words, a different sort of truth, possessing a different mode For a brief outline of Syriac “Proto-monasticism”, see The Luminous Eye, ch. 8. Commentary on Genesis, section XXXV, translated in J. Amar and E. Mathews, St Ephrem the Syrian. Selected Prose Works (The Fathers of the Church, vol. 91; Washington DC, 1994). 2 3

11. ST EPHREM THE SYRIAN ON READING SCRIPTURE

119

of objectivity. What it is essential to realized is that this second approach operates solely from a starting point of faith: provided this is accepted, Ephrem’s spiritual approach remains, not only valid, but also extremely helpful and illuminating.

BRIDGING THE UNBRIDGEABLE CHASM

An extremely important concept this is recurrent in Ephrem’s thought is that of the ontological ‘chasm’ which separates creation from its Creator. The term itself is taken from the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:26); just as the chasm of the parable is uncrossable, so too – as far as humanity is concerned – is the ontological chasm between all creation and God. God, however, in his love for creation, himself crosses the chasm precisely in order to reveal something of his hiddenness. On thanks to this initiative on God’s part is any knowledge of God possible for human beings. As Ephrem points out, Had God not wished to interpret Himself to us there would not have been anything in creation capable of saying anything about Him at all. (Hymns on Faith 44:7)

Prior to the incarnation, God’s self-revelation to his creation takes place above all in two different spheres, in the Bible and in the natural world. ‘Scripture’ and ‘Nature’ thus serve as God’s two witnesses, as required by Jewish law (John 8:17): These are the witnesses which reach everywhere, are found at all times, are present at every moment, rebuking the unbeliever who denies the Creator. (Hymns on Paradise 5:2)

God’s self-revelation to his creation through Scripture and Nature functions by means of raze, a term already found in the Aramaic sections of Daniel, where it means ‘secrets’; in Ephrem and other Syriac writers, however, the word has a considerably different set {40} of connotations: ‘mysteries’, ‘sacraments’, ‘symbols’, ‘types’. In the context of the biblical text raza in Ephrem is usually most satisfactorily translated by ‘symbol’, but with the proviso that this term is not understood in its much weakened modern sense of something essentially different from the thing it symbolizes: as in the Greek and Latin Fathers, so too in the Syriac Fathers the term ‘symbol’ must be understood in a strong sense, since for them the symbol could be said to have an ontological link with what is symbolized. In Ephrem this link between symbol and symbolized is described as a ‘hidden power’. Raze lie hidden everywhere in both Scripture and Nature, providing an immense spider’s web (as it were) of interconnections between the created world and divine reality: Lord, Your symbols are everywhere, yet You are hidden from everywhere! (Hymns on Faith 4:9)

120

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

For Ephrem, these symbols serve as pointers to a hidden divine reality which he simply calls ‘Truth’. They could be described as no more than invitations, seeing that there is absolutely no compulsion to accept them. Ephrem, throughout his writings, lays great stress on God’s gift to humanity of freewill, and he is anxious to avoid any idea that God in any way imposes knowledge of himself on human beings: Any kind of adornment that is the result of compulsion is not genuine, for it is merely imposed: herein lies the greatness of God’s gift, that a person can adorn himself of his own accord, in that God has removed all compulsion. (Nisibene Hymns 16:11)

God’s revelation of aspects of himself through symbols in Scripture and Nature is an integral part of the divine plan to bring about the salvation of fallen humanity: O Lord, You bent down and put on humanity’s types so that humanity might grow through Your self-abasement. (Hymns on Faith 32:9).

Ephrem here employs the imagery of ‘putting on’. This metaphor, taken from everybody’s everyday experience, is an extremely {41} popular one in early Syriac writers and it serves as a vehicle to describe many different stages in the course of salvation history. 4 In the Old Testament God ‘puts on names’, that is, terms which belong to human experience: Out of love the great God put on names that were defective, (Hymns on Faith 29:3)

that is, he allows himself to be spoken of in human terms. God’s ‘putting on of names’ could thus be seen as an incarnation into human language prior to his ‘putting on of a (human) body’, the standard early Syriac phrase for the Incarnation proper. God’s condescension in allowing himself to be spoken of in the Bible in human terms is not to be misinterpreted by taking literally the human terms applied to him. This is something upon which Ephrem is most emphatic: If someone concentrates their attention solely on the metaphors used of God’s majesty, that person abuses and misrepresents His majesty and thus goes astray by means of those metaphors with which God has clothed Himself for that person’s benefit, and he is ungrateful to that Grace

An outline is given in my “’The Robe of Glory’: a biblical image in the Syriac tradition”, The Way 39 [= Spirituality and Clothing] (1999), pp. 247–59. 4

11. ST EPHREM THE SYRIAN ON READING SCRIPTURE

121

which stooped low to the level of his childishness; and although it has nothing in common with him, yet Grace clothed Herself in his likeness in order to bring him to the likeness of Herself. Do not let your intellect be disturbed by mere names, for Paradise has simply clothed itself in terms that are akin to you; it is not because it is impoverished that it has put on your imagery; rather, your nature is far too weak to be capable of attaining to its greatness, and its beauties are much diminished by being depicted in the pale colours with which you are familiar. (Hymns on Paradise 11:6–7)

{42} In another poem Ephrem delightfully compares God’s method of teaching humanity about himself to someone teaching a parrot how to talk, using a mirror:

Let us give thanks to God who has clothed Himself in the names of the body’s various parts: Scripture refers to His ‘ears’ – to teach that He listens to us; it speaks of His ‘eyes’ – to show that He sees us. It was just the names of such things the He put on, and although in His true Being there is no ‘wrath’ or ‘regret’, yet He put on these names too because of our weakness.

We should realize that, had He not put on the names of such things, it would not have been possible for Him to speak with us humans. By means of what belongs to us did He draw close to us: He clothed Himself in our language, so that He might clothe us in His mode of life. He asked for our form, and put this on, and then, as a father with his children, He spoke with our childish state.

It our metaphors that He put on – though He did not literally do so; He then took them off – without actually doing so: when wearing then, He was at the same time stripped of them. He puts one on when it is beneficial, then strips it off in exchange for another; the fact that He strips off and puts on all sorts of metaphors tells us that the metaphor does not apply to His true Being: because that Being is hidden, He has depicted it by means of what is visible. In one place He was like an old man and the Ancient of Days, then again, He became like a hero, a valiant warrior.

122

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD For the purpose of judgment He was an old man, but for conflict He was valiant. In one place He was delaying; elsewhere, having run, He became weary. In one place He was asleep, in another, in need. By every means did He weary Himself so as to gain us.

For this is the Good One, who could have forced us to please Him, without any trouble to Himself; but instead, He toiled by every means so that we might act pleasingly to Him of our own free will, so that we might depict our beauty with the colours that our own free will had gathered; whereas, if He had adorned us, then we would have resembled {43} a portrait that someone else had painted, adorning it with his own colours. A person who is teaching a parrot to speak hides behind a mirror and teaches it in this way: when the bird turns in the direction of the voice which is speaking it finds in front of its eyes its own resemblance reflected; it imagines that it is another parrot, conversing with itself. The man puts the bird’s image in front of it, so that by this means it might learn how to speak.

This bird is a fellow creature with the man, but although this relationship exists, the man beguiles and teaches the parrot something alien to itself by means of itself; in this way he speaks with it. The Divine Being that in all things is exalted above all in His love bent down from on high and acquired from us what we are used to: He has laboured by every means so as to turn all to Himself. (Hymns on Faith 31:1–7)

Ephrem distinguishes between two different kinds of names, or terms, that God ‘puts one’ in the Bible: those that are ‘exact’ are the terms that are eternally applicable, such as ‘Father’, ‘Son’, ‘Holy Spirit’, ‘Sovereign’, ‘King’ etc. All other terms are ‘borrowed’ ones, being taken from human usage, and these should never be taken literally. Furthermore, the converse also applies: Who is so stupid and stubborn so as to suppose, even just a little, that because human beings have been called by names that belong to God, that the nature of man and of God is consequently one, or that, because the Lord has also been called by a name appropriate to His servants, that we should weigh with a single comparison both what is made and its Maker.

When God called us ‘king’, using the name appropriate to Himself, the true sense remains with Him, the likeness applies to us. But when again He called Himself by a name appropriate to His servants, the natural usage lies with us, but the appellation with Him. The true name needs to be recognized, and the borrowed name needs to be rec-

11. ST EPHREM THE SYRIAN ON READING SCRIPTURE

123

ognized, {44} both in His case, and in ours.

Accordingly, in His mercy, for the discerning He accorded His various names to His creatures – not to be investigated, but to be savoured and enjoyed, So, brothers and sisters, let prying into God’s nature dry up and let us multiply prayers, for though He is not related to us, He is as though of our race, and though He is utterly separate, yet He is over all and in all. (Hymns on Faith 63:9–11)

Thus for Ephrem the first essential step in reading the biblical text is to distinguish between the ‘exact’ and the ‘borrowed’ terms that are used of God. To take the ‘borrowed’ terms literally and to suppose that they really describe some aspect of God is to misunderstand and indeed to misinterpret the biblical text disastrously.

IN SEARCH OF THE INTERIOR MEANING

Ephrem’s warnings against any fundamentalist approach to the biblical text are essentially concerning with the proper understanding of the outer surface, as it were, of the biblical text. In order to proceed ‘inwards’, the raze, or symbols and mysteries hidden in Scripture, need to be sought out and perceived. For this, the lucid eye of faith is needed: The Scriptures are laid out like a mirror, and the person whose eye is luminous sees therein the image of Divine Reality. (Hymns on Faith 67:8)

Here one needs to be aware that, according to Ephrem’s understanding of optics, the eye needs to be filled with light in order to be able to see, and the more light that is present in the eye, the more it sees. There are, however, two further essential prerequisites, namely, an approach to the biblical text that is accompanied by wonder and (above all) love: Your fountain, Lord, is hidden from the person who does not thirst for You. Your treasury seems empty {45} to the person who rejects You. Love is the treasurer of Your heavenly treasure store. (Hymns on Faith 32:3)

Love, however, cannot be effective in the absence of Truth: Truth and Love are wings that cannot be separated, for Truth without Love is not able to fly, so too, Love without Truth is unable to soar up,

124

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD for their yoke is one of harmony. (Hymns on Faith 20:12)

By ‘truth’ Ephrem means both a starting point of orthodox belief (without which the vision of the eye of faith would be skewed) and the end point of the search. And what happens when this search for truth is conducted without love is described by Ephrem as follows: A person who seeks after Truth with a grudging spirit cannot gain knowledge even if he actually encounters it, for envy has clouded his mind, and he does not get any the wiser, even if he grabs at that knowledge. (Hymns on Faith 17:1)

Just as the physical eye functions by means of light, so the interior eye functions by means of faith, and the greater the faith, the more raze, or symbols, hidden in both Nature and Scripture is it capable of perceiving. Conversely, if this inner eye is clouded by sin or by lack of faith, it will either fail to see these raze altogether, or it will only perceive them only very faintly. On a few occasions Ephrem talks of his own experience of reading the biblical text with what was evidently a radiantly luminous inner eye of faith. In the first passage he describes his encounter with the narrative about Paradise in Genesis: I read the opening of this book and was filled with joy for its verses and lines spread out their arms to welcome me; the first rushed out and kissed me, and led me on to its companion; and when I reached that verse wherein is written {46} the story of Paradise, it lifted me up and transported me from the bosom of the book to the very bosom of Paradise. The eye and the mind travelled over the lines as over a bridge, and entered together the story of Paradise. The eye as it read transported the mind; in return the mind, too, gave the eye rest from its reading, for when the book had been read the eye had rest, but the mind was engaged.

11. ST EPHREM THE SYRIAN ON READING SCRIPTURE

125

Both the bridge and the gate of Paradise did I find in this book. I crossed over and entered; my eye indeed remained outside, but my mind entered within. I began to wander amid things dot described. This is the luminous height clear, lofty and beauteous: Scripture named it Eden, the summit of all blessings. (Hymns on Paradise 5:3–5)

The verse in St John’s Gospel describing the piercing of Christ’s side on the Cross (John 19:34) served Ephrem (and many other Syriac poets) as a starting point for weaving an amazing embroidery of typological explorations, linking the passage back to the narrative of the Fall in Genesis, and forward to the Sacraments, by way of the betrothal of Christ the Bridegroom to his Bride, the Church. 5 In a lyrical passage in the Commentary on the Diatessaron (or Harmony of the Four Gospels) Ephrem first addresses Christ as he tells of his experience of reading this verse: I ran to all Your limbs, and from them I have received every kind of gift. Through the side pierced with the sword I entered the garden fenced in by the sword. Let us enter in through that side which was pierced, since we were stripped naked by the counsel of the rib that was extracted. The fire that burnt in Adam burnt him in that rib of his; for this reason the side of the Second Adam has been pierced, and from it comes forth a flow of water to quench the fire of the first Adam. (Commentary on the Diatessaron 21:10) {47}

THE TWO APPROACHES AGAIN: UNIVALENCE AND MULTIVALENCE

At the outset it was mentioned that the two approaches to the biblical text, the historical (corresponding to Ephrem’s ‘factual’ exegesis) and the spiritual, are not necessarily conflicting ones, provided the limitations and parameters of each are properly understood. For the historical and academic approach, the search is for a single correct interpretation (whether or not this is any longer attainable is another matter): here it is a matter of correct or incorrect; an interpretation is either right or wrong. By contrast, in the case of the ‘spiritual’ exegesis of Ephrem (and of course others) many different meanings can all be valid at the same time; from this perspective the Some aspects of the rich typological associations found by Syriac writers in this verse can be found in my “The Mysteries hidden in the side of Christ”, Sobornost 7:6 (1978), 464– 72. 5

126

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

biblical text is multivalent, and no longer univalent. Ephrem playfully describes how boring it would be if the inner meaning of the biblical text was just univalent: If there only existed a single sense for the words of Scripture, then the first commentator to come along would discover it, and other hearers would experience neither the labour of searching, nor the joy of finding. Rather, each word of our Lord has its own form, and each form has its own members, and each member has its own character. Each individual understands it according to his capacity, and interprets it as it is granted him. (Commentary on the Diatessaron 7:22)

THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY

At this point it will be helpful to return to George Herbert’s analogy of looking on and through glass, and extending it in order to illustrate how Ephrem’s understanding functions. The surface biblical text corresponds to a pictorial stained glass window, but on the stained glass there are innumerable pin-pricks (as it were) {48} of clear glass. These pin-pricks of clear glass correspond to Ephrem’s raze, or symbols, and what lies beyond the stained glass window is Ephrem’s ‘Truth’, or divine reality, allowing the biblical text (the surface picture) to be seen in relationship to different aspects of the salvation that has been brought by Christ. In other words, for Ephrem, Christ himself represents the hermeneutical key to the biblical text. The pin-pricks of clear glass are not visible to the eye that is looking at the stained glass from a distance; they only become visible if the eye deliberately draws closer and specifically looks for them. It is this initial move that can be seen as corresponding to the starting point of faith. Then, continuing the analogy, the closer the eye gets to the pin-pricks, the more it sees through, and so beyond, the clear glass, thus perceiving the scene that lies outside; in the same sort of way Ephrem’s interior eye becomes increasingly strengthened by faith, and so is enabled to perceive more and more of the raze lying latent in the biblical text. By means of these pointers the eye of faith become capable of seeing beyond the surface text to the ‘Truth’, or divine reality, beyond. At the same time, by relating the biblical text to different aspects of the salvific events of Christ’s incarnation, the inner eye of faith is able to imbue the biblical text with profound new meaning. Just as, in the case of the pin-pricks, what is seen beyond the glass will never be the whole of the scene beyond, but simply certain aspects of it, so too the raze can only point to particular facets of ‘Truth’; however, just as changing the angle of vision will allow for the possibility of seeing many different things through the same pin-prick, so too a single raza can have many different meanings. This analogy perhaps helps to explain why different spiritual meanings will be found in the same text by different people, and indeed the same person may find different meanings in one and the same passage at different times. It is the interaction between reader and text that accounts for this. And this is why Ephrem emphasizes the importance of an attitude of love as a starting point for interacting with the biblical text. Given such an attitude, the biblical text will be found to be an inexhaustible fountain, as St Ephrem points out in a delightful passage where he begins by addressing Christ himself:

11. ST EPHREM THE SYRIAN ON READING SCRIPTURE

127

Who is capable of comprehending the extent of what is to be discovered in a single utterance of Yours? For we leave behind in it far more than we take from it, like thirsty people drinking from a fountain. {49}

The facets of His words are more numerous than the faces of those who learn from them. God depicted his words with many beauties, so that each of those who learn from them can examine that aspect of them which he likes. And God has hidden within His words all sorts of treasures, so that each of us can be enriched by them from whatever aspects they meditate on. For God’s word is the Tree of Life which proffers blessed fruits to you on all sides; it is like the Rock which was struck in the Wilderness, which became a spiritual drink for everyone on all sides: ‘They ate the food of the Spirit and the drank the draft of the Spirit’ (I Corinthians 10:3)

Anyone who encounters Scripture should not suppose that the single one of its riches that he has found is the only one to exist; rather, he should realize that he himself is only capable of discovering that one out of the many riches which exist in it. Nor, because Scripture has enriched him, should the reader impoverish it. Rather, if the reader is incapable of finding more, let him acknowledge Scripture’s magnitude. Rejoice because you have found satisfaction, and do not be grieved that there has been something left over by you. A thirsty person rejoices because he has drunk: he is not grieved because he proved incapable of drinking the fountain dry. Let the fountain vanquish your thirst; your thirst should not vanquish the fountain! If your thirst comes to an end while the fountain has not been diminished, then you can drink again whenever you are thirst; whereas, if the fountain had been drained dry once you had had your fill, your victory over it would have proved to your own harm. Give thanks for what you have taken away, and do not complain about the superfluity that is left over. What you have taken off with you is your portion; what has been left behind can still be your inheritance. (Commentary on the Diatessaron I:18–19) {50}

FOR FURTHER READING

The following are some recent English translations: J. Amar and E. Mathews, St Ephrem the Syrian. Selected Prose Works (Washington DC, 1994). S.P. Brock, The Harp of the Spirit; 18 Poems of St Ephrem (Studies supplementary to Sobornost; 2nd edn. 1983). ———, St Ephrem the Syrian. Hymns on Paradise (Crestwood NY, 1990). C. McCarthy, St Ephrem’s Commentary on the Diatessaron (Oxford/Manchester, 1993). K.E. McVey, Ephrem the Syrian. Hymns (Classics of Western Spirituality, 1989). J.E. Walters, Hymns on the Unleavened Bread by Ephrem the Syrian (Piscataway NJ, 2011). J.T. Wickes, St Ephrem the Syrian. The Hymns on Faith (Washington DC, 2015).

12 THE USE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE WRITINGS OF MOR EPHREM * ‘The Scriptures are laid out like a mirror and the person whose eye is clear sees therein the image of Truth’. (Ephrem, Madroshe on Faith, 67:8).

‘You do well not to let drop from your hands the polished mirror of the holy Gospel of your Lord’. (Ephrem, Letter to Publius, 1)

Mor Ephrem has a wonderfully creative approach to the Biblical text, and he has many passages where he gives excellent guidance on how one should approach the Bible and read it. 1 His innumerable references and allusions to Biblical passages clearly indicate that he knew both the Old and the New Testament extremely well. Moreover, these frequent passing allusions were clearly meant to be recognised by his readers, who in turn must have evidently also have known the Biblical text very well. Thus Ephrem’s writings provide a challenge to modern readers, who often do not have nearly such a good knowledge of the Bible. Before turning to Ephrem’s use of the New Testament, two preliminary matters need to be mentioned. Firstly, what exactly was {104} the text of the Bible that Ephrem used? And secondly, since so many writings are transmitted under Ephrem’s name, which of these really belong to Ephrem? Obviously, only those which are genuine can serve as a reliable basis for any study of Ephrem’s use of the New Testament. For the Old Testament Ephrem will have known the Peshitto, translated from Hebrew, and in his day this will have had virtually the same text that one can read today in modern printed editions of the Peshitto Old Testament. For the New Testament, however, he will not have had exactly the same Syriac text that we read toOriginally published in Sh. Cherian (ed.), Bringing Light to the World, Syriac Tradition Revisited. Essays in honour of the Very Revd Dr Adai Jacob Chorepiscopa (Tiruvalla, 2008), 103–18. 1 I have tried to set this out in ‘St Ephrem on reading Scripture’, Downside Reivew 438 (Jan. 2007), 37–50 = chapter 11, above. *

129

130

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

day in, for example, the United Bible Societies’ edition of the Peshitto New Testament, 2 since the New Testament Peshitto text represents a revision of an earlier translation known as the ‘Old Syriac’, of which only two manuscripts, both with just the Gospels, survive. This revision was under taken about AD 400, well over a century after Ephrem’s death (in 373). The earlier translation may go back to the late second or early third century, and Ephrem refers to it as ‘the Greek’, simply because it was a translation from the Greek Gospels. But even this is not the only Syriac Gospel text that Ephrem knew, for when he decided to write a Commentary on the Gospels, he did not base it on the four separate Old Syriac Gospels (mepharreshe), but instead he chose to use the harmony of the four Gospels, known as the Diatessaron (‘through Four’), or in Syriac as the mehallete, ‘mixed (Gospels)’. It is interesting that the Diatessaron is referred to in the Teaching of Addai as being the standard Gospel text, and from other sources it is known that it continued to circulate widely until the early decades of the fifth century, after which it was suppressed. As a result the Syriac Diatessaron disappeared and it is only known today from quotations, above all, those in Ephrem’s Commentary. Likewise, apart from the two manuscripts with the ‘Old Syriac’ Gospels, we have no other surviving witnesses to the ‘Old Syriac’, or pre-Peshitta, text of the New Testament. This means that quotations of other books of the New Testament in the writings of Aphrahat and Ephrem are particularly important, since they alone can give us an {105} idea of what sort of differences from the Peshitto this lost ‘Old Syriac’ of Acts and the Epistles might have had. In the Gospels, the differences are often quite striking, but it would appear from the quotations in early writers that the differences were much less in the rest of the New Testament. It is now generally recognized that Ephrem’s genuine writings fall into four main categories: (1) Ordinary prose. Here the relevant works are his Commentary on the Diatessaron, 3 mentioned above, about two thirds of which survives in the original Syriac, the rest in an early Armenian translation; and his Commentaries on Acts and on the Epistles, both of which only survive in Armenian translation (since the editions of these are difficult of access, these are not taken into consideration below). (2) Artistic prose. Two important works are the Mimro ‘on our Lord’ and the Letter to Publius. 4 In most printed editions of the Syriac New Testament the reader will find several books which did not originally form part of the Syriac New Testament canon, namely 2 Peter, 2–3 John, Jude and Revelation. These were not known to Ephrem, and they do not form part of the Peshitto proper, for they were only translated into Syriac in the sixth and seventh centuries, and in modern editions it is usually the sixth-century translation that has been provided for the books absent from the Peshitto. 3 English translation: C. McCarthy, Saint Ephrem’s Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron (Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 2; Oxford/Manchester, 1993). 4 An English translation of both can be found in E.G. Mathews and J. Amar, St Ephrem the Syrian. Selected Prose Works (The Fathers of the Church, 92; Washington DC, 1994); this 2

12. THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE WRITINGS OF MOR EPHREM

131

(3) Narrative couplets (7+7 syllables, the ‘metre of Ephrem’. Only a few of the large number of these mimre attributed to Ephrem are genuine, notably the Mimre on Faith, that on Jonah and the Repentance of Nineveh, and probably the core of that on the Sinful Woman. 5 (4) The various collections of madroshe: the most important of these are those on the Church, the Crucifixion, Faith, the Fast, the Nativity, the Nisibenes, Paradise, the Resurrection, Unleavened Bread, and Virginity. 6 It is largely through the vehicle of the madroshe that Ephrem expresses his profound theological vision. About 450 of these madroshe survive today, preserved for the most part in sixth-century manuscripts. * Being a commentary on the Gospel text, the Commentary on the Diatessaron is by far the most important direct witness to Ephrem’s use of the New Testament. It has been pointed out by various scholars 7 that the Commentary in the form in which he have it today must incorporate some later elements, alongside much material which is {106} likely to be genuinely by Ephrem: it is possible that Ephrem left the Commentary in an unfinished state at his death, and his work was subsequently ‘edited’ by his disciples. This would explain the fact that the treatment of the Biblical text is rather uneven: some passages are passed over very briefly, while others are elucidated by means of detailed discussions, where sometimes several different possible interpretations are offered without further comment. Quite often his comments will take the form of ‘This is like…’ such and such a passage, 8 thus explaining one Biblical text by means of another (a practice which Syriac Christianity will have inherited from its Jewish background). Thus, to take but a single example, on the beatitude ‘Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God’ (Matt. 5:8), he writes ‘This is like what the prophet was asking for in prayer, ‘Create in me a pure heart, O God’ volume also contains the Commentaries on Genesis and Exodus, but both of these only have very few references to the New Testament. 5 These are only available in old English translations at present; for these (and for some other mimre which are likely to be genuine), see my ‘A brief guide to the main editions and translations of the works of St Ephrem’, chapter 24, below. 6 There is a recent English translation of the madroshe on the Nativity and on Virginity in K. McVey, Ephrem the Syrian. Hymns (Mahwah NY, 1989), and of those on Paradise in my St Ephrem the Syrian. Hymns on Paradise (Crestwood NY, 1990). There is now a recent ET by J.T. Wickes, St Ephrem the Syrian. The Hymns of Faith (Washington DC, 2015). Selections can be found in my The Harp of the Spirit: 18 Poems of St Ephrem (Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius, 2nd edn 1983), and in S. Brock and G. Kiraz, Ephrem the Syrian. Select Poems [Syriac and English] (Provo, 2006). For translations of individual poems, see my ‘Brief guide’ (note 5, above). 7 Most recently C. Lange, The Portrayal of Christ in the Syriac Commentary on the Diatessaron (CSCO 616, Subsidia 118; Leuven, 2005). 8 Other examples can be found, e.g., at VIII.1a, 13; XII.11; XVIII.3.

132

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

(Ps.51:12). Therefore, those whose hearts are pure ‘will see God’, like Moses. (cp Num. 12:8)’. The most extended discussion on a particular passage is in Chapter VII, on the healing of the woman with a haemorrhage. Characteristically, the chapter opens with a doxology, ‘Glory to You, hidden Offspring of Being…’; then in the course of his comments on the Gospel text, Ephrem takes the opportunity to reflect on wider issues of physical and spiritual healing, and Christ’s role in general as ‘our Physician’. 9 It is significant that Ephrem should have chosen this episode, involving a woman, to expand upon, for throughout his writings he shows a great empathy with Biblical women (and of course, as Jacob of Serugh informs us in his panegyric on Ephrem, it was he who introduced the practice of having women’s choirs). It is interesting to find that in his Mimro ‘on our Lord’, which could be described as an extended meditative reflection on different aspects of Christ’s ministry on earth, Ephrem again devotes a great deal of space to another woman from the Gospel text, this time, the woman who anointed Jesus in the house of Simon (Luke 7). 10 The same woman also forms the subject of an entire narrative mimro. 11 The Commentary also has a number of further passages, especially towards the end of the work, where Ephrem stands back, as it were, {107} from the Biblical text and pauses for reflection on some specifically theological matter. 12 Then again, there are a few passages which take on a lyrical character, where he breaks out into carefully structured artistic prose. Thus, when he comes to the episode of the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4) he introduces the section in this way: Our Lord came to the fountain of water like a hunter. He asked for water, so that he might give water – under the pretext of water. He asked for a drink, like someone who is thirsty, so that the gateway to quenching thirst might be opened. (XII.16)

The most remarkable passage of this sort, however, concerns the piercing of the side of Christ (John 19:34), a verse which could be described as one of the main focal points for Syriac typological exegesis. 13 Having described the ‘fountain’ of There is a good study of this theme in A. Shemunkasho, Healing in the Theology of Saint Ephrem (Piscataway NJ, 2002). 10 Mimro ‘on our Lord’, sections 15–17, 24, 42–47. 11 Edited by E. Beck as Sermo II.4 in his Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermones II (CSCO Scr. Syri 134; Louvain, 1970); another edition, based on a different manuscript, is given in my Luqote d-mimre d-‘al ktobay qudsho (Monastery of St Ephrem, Holland, 1993), pp. 68–79. For a translation, see note 5. 12 Thus XX.35–39; XXI.1–3; 14–19; XXII.5–6. 13 See ‘The Lance which re-opened Paradise’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 39 (1973), pp. 224–34, 491, and my ‘The Mysteries hidden in the Side of Christ’, Sobornost VII.6 (1978), 462–72 (reprinted in Studies in Syriac Spirituality (Syrian Churches Series 13, ed. J. Vellian; 1988), chapter 7 [revised second edition, ed. T. Kollamparampil, forthcoming]); also my The 9

12. THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE WRITINGS OF MOR EPHREM

133

blood and water which issued from Christ’s side, he exclaims, addressing Christ directly, I have run to all your limbs, and from them I have received every kind of gift. Through the side pierced with the sword, I entered into Garden fenced in by the sword (Gen. 3:24). Let us enter in through that side which was pierced, since we were stripped naked by the counsel of the rib that was extracted [from Adam’s side] (Gen. 2:21–2) The fire that burnt in Adam, burnt him in that rib of his; for this reason the side of the Second Adam has been pierced, and from it comes forth a flow of water to quench the First Adam’s fire. (XXI.10).

The Syriac Diatessaron, upon which Ephrem commented, was the source of several terms which were to become of great significance in subsequent Syriac exegetical and liturgical tradition. Thanks to {108} Ephrem’s Commentary on the Diatessaron I.25 (cp II.5) it is known that the Diatessaron was the source of the distinctive interpretation which we find in all the Syriac versions (including the Harklean) of the Greek episkiasei, ‘will overshadow (you)’ in Gabriel’s annunciation to Mary (Luke 1:35): instead of translating literally, all the Syriac versions use the verb aggen, which might best be translated ‘to tabernacle’. Significantly the same verb is also used in John 1:14. The verb aggen is not the obvious Syriac translation of the Greek in either passage, and it seems to have been deliberately chosen because of its associations with the Passover narrative in Exodus 12, where the Palestinian Targum (though not the Peshitta) use the same verb in connection with the Passover lamb. The links between the Passover lamb and Christ the Paschal Lamb are in fact brought out many times by Ephrem, but most explicitly in his Commentary on Exodus and in several of the madroshe on Unleavened Bread. In the Syrian Orthodox liturgical tradition the verb plays a central role in many invocations to the Holy Spirit, including the Epiclesis in the Anaphora of St James. 14 Curiously, Ephrem himself only uses the verb when he is quoting directly either Luke 1:35 or John 1:14, whereas when he is simply alluding to one or other of those passages he employs the verb shro, ‘to reside’, as in the following Madrosho on the Nativity (4:174), alluding to Luke 1:35: When the Power resided (shro) in the womb that same Power was fashioning infants in the wombs.

Likewise in one of the Madroshe on the Resurrection (1.7), referring to John 1:14:

Holy Spirit in the Syrian Baptismal Tradition (Syrian Churches Series 9; 2nd edn, 1998), pp. 136– 43. 14 See further my ‘The background to some terms in the Syriac Eucharistic Epicleses’, The Harp 13 (2000), pp. 1–12; and (in more detail) chapters XI–XIII in my Fire from Heaven: Studies in Syriac Theology and Liturgy (Aldershot, 2006).

134

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD Blessed is he who resided (shro) in us.

It may well be that this verb shro (which also has a Jewish Aramaic background) served to describe the action of the Word at the incarnation in Mary’s womb in the earliest oral tradition of the Gospel to reach the Syriac-speaking world. 15 It is evident from his choice of particular wording, both here and elsewhere, that the compiler of the Syriac Diatessaron was concerned {109} to link up certain New Testament passages with Old Testament ones. An influential example is to be found in chapter XIV.1 of Ephrem’s Commentary on the Diatessaron where, in the famous passage, Matthew 16:18, instead of ‘gates of Sheol’, we find ‘bars (mukle) of Sheol’. 16 Here again the choice is evidently deliberate, for it draws attention to two related passages in the Old Testament, Psalm 107:16 and Isaiah 45:2, the latter of which reads ‘The gates of bronze I shall shatter, and the bars (mukle) of iron I shall break’. The reason for associating the verse in Matthew with these two passages lay in the fact that, from the second century AD onwards, they were both taken to refer to the Descent of Christ into Sheol. By using mukle in Matthew 16:18, the compiler of the Syriac Diatessaron will have intended his readers to understand that verse, too, as referring to the saving effects of Christ’s Descent, a theme which was to play an important role both in Ephrem’s poetry and in subsequent Syriac theology. 17 The link between the Descent and the verse in Matthew is particularly well brought out in one of Ephrem’s Mimre on Nicomedia, preserved complete only in Armenian translation: 18 When (the Church’s) Lord died, his death became life in Sheol, …the Church of Christ is stronger even than death, totally victorious, for ‘The bars of Sheol are not victorious’ over his Church, as he said. (Mimro XIV on Nicomedia, lines 135ff).

There are two further important terms, both of which likely to derive from the Syriac Diatessaron, even though we cannot be entirely certain since they are in verses upon which happen not to be quoted in the Commentary on the Diatessaron. In the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus 19 the word used in the Old Syriac and Peshitta for the ‘chasm’ between Abraham and the Rich Man, lying dead in Sheol, is hawto (Luke 16:26); on the basis of Ephrem’s quotations in other works it is clear that his Gospel text – very probably the Diatessaron – {110} had a different word, pehto. The See chapter X in Fire from Heaven. For details, see my ‘The Gates/Bars of Sheol revisited’, in W.L. Petersen and others (ed.), Sayings of Jesus: Canonical and Non-Canonical (Leiden, 1997), pp. 7–24. 17 See especially T. Buchan, “Blessed is He who has brought Adam from Sheol”. Christ’s Descent to the Dead in the Theology of Saint Ephrem the Syrian (Piscataway NJ, 2004). 18 Published by C. Renoux, in Patrologia Orientalis 37 (1975). 19 A fine study of Ephrem’s exegesis of the Gospel parables is provided by K.A. Valavanolickal, The Use of the Gospel Parables in the Writings of Aphrahat and Ephrem (Frankfurt am Main, 1996). 15 16

12. THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE WRITINGS OF MOR EPHREM

135

significance of this lies in the fact that one of the basic emphases of Ephrem’s theological world view is the separation between Creator and creation, for which he regularly uses the term pehto. 20 Numerous references to the parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins (Matthew 25:1–10) are to be found in early Syriac writings, and it is noticeable that when they allude to verse 10, (‘when they had gone off to buy (oil), the bridegroom arrived, and the ones who were prepared entered the wedding feast with him’ according to the Old Syriac and Peshitta), the term that is very frequently used is gnuno, ‘bridal chamber’, and not than ‘wedding feast’. 21 Thus, in one of the Madroshe on Faith (11:18), Ephrem writes Your bridal chamber yearns for virgins 22 whose lamps are rich in oil.

Likewise, in the Letter to Publius (section 12) Ephrem tells how, in ‘the mirror of the Gospel’ he saw ‘beautiful people’ and their ‘bridal chamber, which no one who does not have a lamp may enter’. Once again, it is likely that the term originated in the Diatessaron, even though there is no direct testimony to this. In any case, what is important to recognize is that already by Ephrem’s day the term gnuno had taken on eschatological connotations, especially on the phrases ‘bridal chamber of joys’ and ‘bridal chamber of light’; 23 thus, for example, in the Madroshe on Virginity (24:3) Ephrem writes of ‘the holy eagles (i.e. ascetics) who have taken off and flown up to the bridal chamber of joys’, while the contrast with Gehenna is directly brought out in the Madroshe on the Church (26:2) (Christ) has promised the bridal chamber to the person who loves him, but Gehenna to the one who hates him.

One of the characteristics of Ephrem’s poetry is the bringing together of parallels and contrasts that are to be found in the Bible. An example of the former can be seen in the first of his Madroshe on the Resurrection (1:13): He was one of the guests at the wedding feast, he was one of the fasters at the Temptation, he was one of the watchful at the Agony, he was a teacher in the Temple. Blessed is his instruction!

{111}

(Jn 2:1–11) (Mt 4:1–11) (Mt 26:26–36) (Mk 12:35)

For this, see T. Koonammakkal, ‘Ephrem’s imagery of chasm’, in R. Lavenant (ed.), Symposium Syriacum VII (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 256; Rome, 1998), pp. 175–83. 21 A good example, earlier than Ephrem, is provided by Aphrahat, Demonstration VI.1. 22 Ephrem uses the masculine form. In the preceding lines he also uses ‘wedding feast’, thus combining the standard Syriac biblical text with what is (presumably) the Diatessaron reading. 23 Both phrases are very common in liturgical texts: see my ‘The Bridal Chamber of Light: a distinctive feature of the Syriac liturgical tradition’, The Harp 18 (2005), pp. 179–91. 20

136

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

And for the latter one might cite the Mimro on our Lord (section 13, end):

One woman’s fear allowed her to come only as close as the hem on his garment (Lk 8:44), while another woman’s love (Lk 7:47) drew her eagerly to his body; those who had not been healed by his words were put to shame by the woman who received healing from his clothes. The man who had not wanted to kiss his lips (Lk 7:44–45) was reproached by the woman who kissed his feet (Lk 7:38)’.

Ephrem’s poetry in particular abounds in allusions which were certainly intended to be caught by his hearers. In several poems where he has personified Death and Satan arguing between themselves, Ephrem presents Satan, too, as having an extremely good knowledge of the Bible. This can be particularly well seen in one of the poems where Ephrem portrays Death and Satan arguing in alternating verses over which of them has the greater power over human beings. After some 20 verses where each provides examples from the Old Testament in support of his own position, they turn to examples in the New: Death: Take John, who vanquished you, O Evil One, by providing forgiveness and baptism; (Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3) It was I who extinguished that lantern (Mt 14:12) which had laid you bare. (Jn 5:35)

Satan: Simon defeated you when he revived the blessed woman; (Acts 9:40) he vanquished you with a woman – and it was with a woman that I vanquished him, making him deny (Christ). (Mt 26:69–72) (Madroshe of the Nisibenes 53: 22–23)

Ephrem has a very large repertory of titles for Christ, most of which were subsequently taken up in the liturgical tradition. 24 Many of these are clearly derived from the New Testament. In some cases they are taken over directly from statements by Christ himself in the Gospels; this applies to titles such as ‘Shepherd’ (from Mt 26:31, Jn 10:11), or ‘Gate’ (from Jn 10:9). The former of these happens to be more commonly used by Ephrem in the form ‘Shepherd of all’ (ro‘e kul), 25 and it is noticeable that he is particularly fond of titles for Christ consisting of a participle followed by kul, such as zo’en kul, ‘Provisioner of all’, Madroshe on Virginity 23:10 and elsewhere. Other titles, however, are deduced from specific passages. Thus, for example, Ephrem not infrequently calls Christ ‘the Rich One’ (‘atiro), a title derived from 2 {112}

For titles of Christ in early Syriac writings, see especially R. Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom (2nd edn, Piscataway NJ, 2004), pp. 354–63. See now T. Koonammakkal, The Theology of Divine Names in the Genuine Works of Ephrem (Moran Etho 40; Kottayam: SEERI, 2015). 25 Ephrem uses this title over a dozen times, e.g. Madroshe on the Church 8:7, on Faith 12:15, on the Nativity 4:128, 11:6, on Unleavened Bread 8:6. 24

12. THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE WRITINGS OF MOR EPHREM

137

Corinthians 8:9, ‘you are aware of the grace of our Lord, who became poor, while being rich, so that you might be enriched by means of his poverty’: The mind wanders among your attributes, O Rich One! Copious inner chambers are in your Godhead, contemptible appearances in your humanity. Who will measure you, Great Sea who made himself small? (Madroshe on the Nativity, 13:8; tr. McVey) 26

A rather surprising title, but one which is already found in Aphrahat, 27 is ‘Fatted Ox’ (tawro d-petmo), derived from the parable of the Prodigal Son (Lk 15:23), implying a eucharistic interpretation of the parable: Blessed is the Fatted Ox who came and slaughtered himself for human beings. (Madroshe on the Church, 31:4) 28

Among the healing miracles in the Gospels there is one in particular that Ephrem frequently alludes to. This is the giving of sight to the man blind from birth (Jn 9:1– 12), where Ephrem supposes that the man was born without pupils, and that consequently the miracle, involving Christ’s spittle and earth, was one of creation rather than {113} just healing. On one occasion he uses the passage in order to refute the Marcionite doctrine, that the Creator God of the Old Testament was a different Being from the Good God of the New, but elsewhere his allusion to the miracle has no polemical intent. 29 A particularly striking example is to be found in one of the Madroshe on the Fast (6:6): Who is there like you (Christ), who gave such honour to our faces? For it was upon the ground that you spat (Jn 9:6), and not upon his face, thus holding our image (Gen. 1:26) in honour. But with us, Lord, please spit on our faces and open the eyes which our own free will has closed. Blessed is he who gave us the mind’s eye – which we have managed to blind.

Sometimes Ephrem will point to a particular interpretation of a passage by means of an added gloss. Thus, referring to Matthew 6:6, on praying in secret, he writes: Other passages where Ephrem uses this title are all in the collection on the Nativity, 1:94, 3:10, 11:7. 27 Demonstration 2:6, 6:6, and 7:12. 28 Ephrem uses the title again in Madroshe on the Nativity, 9:15. 29 The main passages where he alludes to this miracle are Madroshe on the Nativity 17:12, 14; on the Church 13:12, on Virginity 35:3, and on Faith 10:7. In the Commentary on the Diatessaron 16:28–32 the main focus of Ephrem’s discussion is concerned with interior and exterior blindness. 26

138

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD Petition that has been refined is the virgin of ‘the inner chamber’: if she passes the ‘door’ of the mouth, she is like one gone astray. Truth is her bridal chamber, love her crown, stillness and silence are the trusty eunuchs at her door. (Madroshe on Faith, 20:6)

By explaining the ‘door’ as being ‘of the mouth’, Ephrem points to the internalized interpretation of Christ’s saying, referring it to prayer of the heart, which is already found – in a much more explicit form – in Aphrahat, Demonstration IV.10. 30 Although most of the examples that have been quoted above have been related to the Gospels, it should not be thought that Ephrem neglected the Acts and the Epistles. In the Mimro on our Lord he reflects at length (sections 33–41) on the passage in Acts on the {114} conversion of Paul. As far as Paul’s Letters are concerned, it must suffice here to draw attention to two verses in particular that were important for Ephrem, Ephesians 2:14, ‘Christ is our peace, who has made the two one, and has dissolved the fence (syogo)….’, and Philippians 2:6–7, especially the phrase ‘he emptied himself’. Along with other early Syriac writers, Ephrem probably understands the ‘fence’ not to be the Mosaic Law, but the ‘fence’ that keeps fallen humanity out of Paradise. Even though the Peshitto text of Genesis 3:24 does not mention the term syogo, Ephrem, along with other early Syriac writers, regularly uses this term in connection with the cherub’s revolving sword guarding the entry to Paradise, described in that verse. In his Commentary on Genesis (II.36) describes the barrier provided by the cherub as ‘a living fence (syogo)’, and in the next section (III.1) he speaks of Paradise as having been ‘fenced in’ (ettsig). Likewise, in one of the Madroshe on Paradise (4:1; cp 4:6) he comments: (On seeing Adam’s audacity, and knowing that he would transgress again) God set down a boundary guarded by force. The mere words of the commandment (Gen. 2:17) had been the boundary to the Tree, but now the cherub and the sharp sword provided the fence to Paradise (syogeh d-Pardayso).

It is the pierced side of Christ on the Cross that re-opens the way to Paradise: as the refrain to the second of the Madroshe on Paradise puts it succinctly, ‘Blessed in he who was pierced and (thus) removed Paradise’s sword’. In a passage from the Commentary on the Diatessaron (XXI.10) already quoted, the same point was made, using a verbal form related to the noun syogo: Through the side pierced with the sword I entered the Garden fenced in by the sword (sigat b-rumho).

Both texts are translated in full in my The Syriac Fathers on Prayer and the Spiritual Life (Kalamazoo, 1987). There are also translations of Madroshe on Faith, no. 20, by R. Murray in Parole de l’Orient 6/7 (1975/6), pp. 19–20, and by A.N. Palmer, in his ‘The Merchant of Nisibis: Saint Ephrem and his faithful quest for union in numbers’, in J. den Boeft and A.Hilhorst (eds), Early Christian Poetry (Leiden, 1993), pp. 162–3. 30

12. THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE WRITINGS OF MOR EPHREM

139

Ephrem explains the matter at greater length in one of the Madroshe on the Crucifixion (9:2; compare Madroshe on the Nativity 8:4):

{115}

Happy are you, living wood of the Cross, 31 for you proved to be a hidden sword to Death, for with that sword which smote him, the Son slew Death, when he himself was struck by it: the sword that pierced Christ removed the sword guarding Paradise; his forgiveness tore up our document of debt (Col. 2:14).

It is intriguing to find that in the Commentary on the Diatessaron (II.17), the first of various possible interpretations of Luke 2:35, where his Biblical text read ‘You shall cause the sword to pass’, Ephrem hints at the typological links between John 19:34 and Eve (born from the side of Adam), and her disobedience to God’s ‘tiny commandment’, and her contrast with Mary, by stating that ‘the sword which guarded Paradise because of Eve was removed by Mary’, seeing that it was Mary’s acceptance of the angel’s message that ultimately ultimately resulted in the possibility of the saving effects of the pierced side of Christ. The phrase ‘he emptied himself’ (naphsheh sareq) in Philippians 2:7 was the starting point for a considerable number of subsequent developments, some of which are distinctive to the Syriac tradition. Needless to say, in discussions on Christology the phrase played a very important role, but already in the two fourth-century Syriac writers, Aphrahat 32 and Ephrem, the ‘self emptying’ is linked with discipleship and the ascetic imitation of Christ, based on Matthew 19:21, Luke 12:23 and 14:33, about abandoning possessions. It is in Ephrem that we find what seems to be the earliest recorded use of the term suroqo, ‘self-emptying, renunciation’, certainly derived from the Pauline verse: The law is divided up for us into three forms, for it accords honour, consecration (qudsho) and virginity, {116} (involving, respectively) possessions, renunciation (suroqo) and perfection (gmirutho). (Madroshe against Heresies 45:10)

Later writers were to develop this theme considerably, adding yet another form based on Philippians 2:7, msarqutho, which becomes a central term in Syriac monastic literature. 33 On the theme of the Cross in Ephrem, see Mar Cyril A. Karim, Symbols of the Cross in the Writings of the Early Syriac Fathers (Piscataway NJ, 2004). 32 Demonstration III.1; VII.20. The theme is especially developed in the Book of Steps (Liber Graduum, ktobo d-masqotho), probably dating from slightly later than Ephrem. 33 This is discussed in my ‘Radical renunciation: the ideal of msarrquta’, in R. Darling Young and M.J. Blanchard (eds.), ‘To train his soul in books’: Syriac Asceticism in Early Christianity (Washington DC, 2011), 123–33. 31

140

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

An appropriate ending to this brief glance at some of the many different ways in which Ephrem makes use of the New Testament is provided by another passage in the Gospels to which he alludes on several different occasions, namely the Canaanite woman’s reply to Christ, that the dogs also eat the crumbs which fall from the table (Mt 15:27 and parallels). Especially at the end of a poem Ephrem likes to compare himself indirectly, and with a touch of humour, to one of the dogs under the table (and thus indirectly, to the Canaanite woman too). 34 Thus he concludes a wonderful poem on the Eucharist 35 with the following words: See, Lord, my lap is now filled with the crumbs from your Table; there is no room any more in the folds of my garment, so hold back your gift as I worship before you; keep it in your treasure house in readiness to give it to us on another occasion. (Madroshe on Faith, 10:22).

34 35

E.g. Madroshe on Paradise 5:16; cp 1:16; on Nativity 4:83. A full translation of the poem can be found in The Harp 1:1 (1987), pp. 61–8.

13

ST EPHREM ON WOMEN IN THE OLD TESTAMENT* The sixth-century biography of St Ephrem has a delightful story (Ch. 11) concerning the saint’s arrival in Edessa: As he was about the enter the city, he came to the river Daisan which encircles the city. Happening to see some women washing clothes, he stood by the river watching them. When one of the women looked up at him, and stared at him for a while, he became very angry with her, saying ‘Woman, have you no shame?’ To which she replied, ‘It is for you to stare at the earth, since you are taken from it; but it is for me to stare at you, since I am taken from you’. Recognizing her wisdom, he was astonished at the woman’s word, and as he went on he thought to himself, ‘If the women of this city are this wise, how much wiser must its men and boys be!’

Ephrem’s recognition of the woman’s allusion to Genesis 2:21: certainly rings true of what we otherwise know of his attitude to women, though the comment at the end which the biographer put into Ephrem’s mouth is hardly in character. Although the biography later goes on to mention that Ephrem instituted choirs of bnot qyomo (Ch. 31), it is from an earlier source, the panegyric of St Ephrem by his fellow poet, St Jacob of Serugh, 1 that we hear most about this aspect of Ephrem’s work: The blessed Ephrem saw that the women were silent from praise, so in his wisdom he decided it was right that they should sing out. Just as Moses gave timbrels to the young girls, so too the discerning man composed hymns for virgins. As he stood among the sisters, it was his delight to stir these chaste women into songs of praise. (96–8)

And earlier, addressing Ephrem directly, Jacob writes:

Originally published in Saint Éphrem. Un poète pour notre temps (Patrimoine syriaque, Actes du Colloque XI; CERO, Antélias, 2007), pp. 35–44 1 Ed. J.P. Amar, A Metrical Homily on Holy Mar Ephrem by Mar Jacob of Serugh (Patrologia Orientalis 47:1; 1995); I cite the poem using Amar’s numbering of the couplets. *

141

142

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD Your instruction opened the mouths of Eve’s daughters that had been shut, and now the gatherings of the glorious Church resound with their voices. A novel sight, that women should utter the proclamation; and now they are called ‘teachers’ in the assemblies. (41–2) 2

St Ephrem’s great empathy for women is clear from numerous passages in his writings. In this paper I should like to illustrate this by looking at the way in which he writes about various women who are mentioned in the Old Testament. Since the story which I quoted at the beginning has reference to the birth of Eve from Adam’s side, it will be appropriate to begin by looking briefly at the way Ephrem treats Eve, in particular in his Commentary on Genesis. Ephrem discusses the episode of the Fall, in Genesis 2–3 at length; in the course of this he pays considerable attention to Eve’s failure to question the serpent, and even indicates what she should have said, but what is important to notice is that Ephrem blames Adam and Eve equally for their disobedience to what he calls ‘God’s tiny commandment’ not to eat of the fruit of just one tree out of the many trees that they had available. In his poetry Ephrem alludes indirectly to the aspect of Eve’s listening to the serpent, since this lies at the origin of the imagery of Mary’s conception of God the Word through her ear, familiar from medieval European art as well as from Syriac liturgical poetry. This comes out very clearly from passages such as the following: Just as it was by the small cavity of (Eve’s) ear that Death entered and was poured out, so too it was by a new ear, that of Mary, that Life entered and was poured out. (Madroshe on the Chuch 49:7) 3

While Ephrem quite frequently contrasts Mary with Eve (and on one occasion speaks of Mary as ‘the innocent Eve’ (Madroshe on Virginity 26:1), there are other passages where Ephrem introduces a much more positive typological parallel. Thus Eve’s miraculous birth from Adam’s side is a pointer to Mary’s miraculous birthgiving to Christ on several occasions. A very striking use is made of Eve’s originating from Adam’s side in the Commentary on the Diatessaron, where Ephrem is refuting the view, evidently held by some, that the Holy Spirit (feminine in Syriac) was the daughter or sister of God the Father: It was not said of Eve that she was the sister of Adam, or his daughter, but that she was taken from him. Likewise one must not say that the Holy Spirit is (God’s) daughter or his sister, but that the Holy Spirit proceeds from God and is consubstantial with him.

On this passage, see especially S.A. Harvey, ‘Revisiting the Daughters of the Covenant: women’s choirs and sacred song in ancient Syriac Christianity’, Hugoye [syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye] 8:2 (2005). 3 In the Madroshe on the Nativity 21:15 Ephrem specifies that it is poison the the serpent pours into Eve’s ear, whereas, in the Madroshe on Virginity 23:5, Mary ‘conceived as a result of her listening’. 2

13. ST EPHREM ON WOMEN IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

143

(Commentary on the Diatessaron 19:15) 4

Another passage where Eve is given special attention of a positive character is the beginning of the 13th Madrosho on the Nativity Ephrem speaks of the prophetic ‘hidden power, or meaning’ in the words of the ‘Hebrew daughters’, who proclaim ‘Today let Eve rejoice in Sheol, for the Son of her daughter has come down, as the Medicine of Life, to save the mother of His mother’. We can observe Ephrem’s concern for women particularly well when he gets to Genesis 22, on Abraham and the Binding of Isaac, in his Commentary on Genesis (section XX). The biblical text of this chapter is very restrained in the information it gives to the reader, and in particular no mention at all is made of Sarah, Abraham’s wife and Isaac’s mother. After paraphrasing the opening verses with the words ‘Abraham rose early, cut some wood, and took two of his servants and Isaac and left’, Ephrem adds: He did not reveal it to Sarah since he had not been ordered to reveal it, but (had he done so) she would have been beseeching him that she might go and share in his sacrifice, just as he had made her share in the promise of Isaac’s birth. Another reason was in order that his household should not attempt to stop him, with the women wailing in his tent, and so that his neighbours would not get together to snatch the young man from him.

It is evident that both Jewish and Christian commentators in Late Antiquity – unlike modern commentaries – asked them question ‘What about Sarah? Was she aware of what was happening? On the whole the Greek exegetical tradition takes a rather negative attitude towards her: Abraham did not tell her since he suspected she would try and stop him from carrying out God’s commandment. In the Syriac tradition we have a number of dramatic literary treatments of this chapter in Genesis, and in several of them we find that they have taken as their starting point Ephrem’s much more positive attitude, saying that, had Sarah known, she would have shared in her husband’s faith in, and love towards, God. One poem, indeed, presents Sarah as having been doubly tested, whereas her husband was only tested once. Although Ephrem does not go into detail, what he says firmly places Sarah along with Abraham as a model of utter faith that God would keep his promise, made in Gen. 17:19, that he would make an everlasting covenant with Isaac for his descendants after him (descendants through Isaac are likewise promised in Gen. 21:12). Here, as elsewhere, a brief comment by Ephrem provides the starting point for later literary developments in the way in which the biblical text was understood. Ephrem has some interesting things to say about Sarah elsewhere too. In both the Commentary and in two of his madroshe, Ephrem goes out of his way to explain a problematic passage which concerns Sarah in Genesis. In Genesis 12 Abraham and Sarah go down to Egypt, where Pharaoh is captivated by Sarah’s beauty (an episode nicely brought out in the Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran). The biblical 4

The passage is preserved only in the Armenian translation.

144

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

text leaves it unclear whether Pharaoh slept with Sarah or not, and the subsequent exegetical tradition was divided over this. While Ephrem accepts that he did, he comments (IX.3): Pharaoh was smitten down because he had compelled her to be with him, 5 against her will. Had in not been in order to stop them killing both her and her husband, she would not have submitted to this.

In the Madroshe on Virginity 1:9 Ephrem emphatically states that ‘Sarah in the bosom of Pharaoh was chaste: she did not commit adultery by her own will’. ‘Chaste’ is actually too weak a translation, for the words which Ephrem uses are qadisho hwot, literally ‘she was holy’, but here Ephrem is using the term qadisho in its technical sense of the marital continence of the bnay and bnot qyomo. In passing we might notice that Ephrem is one of the few Church Fathers who regarded the unwilling victim of rape as remaining spiritually unsullied. In the Madroshe on the Nativity Ephrem takes a different line on Sarah in Genesis 12: whereas some might have supposed that Sarah might have been lured by the attractions of life in the palace, she stuck with Abraham, seeing that in his seed would be the promised Messiah (Gal. 3:16). Ephrem here addresses Christ directly: It is for you, O Royal Son, that Sarah yearned, and she abhorred the king (Pharaoh): the royal palace gave no pleasure, for she was going around with an exile (Abraham): she was attached to him, for she saw your manifestation hidden within him. (Madroshe on the Nativity 20:4) 6

In the same poem, it is because of this same yearning for the Messiah, promised in Abraham’s seed, that makes her jealous of Hagar, when Abraham has a child (Ishmael) by Hagar (Gen. 16:4–5; cp 21:10). It is this same theme, expectation for the Messiah, that Ephrem introduces in connection with Tamar, Judah’s daughter in law. On the surface, the narrative of Genesis 38 is hardly very uplifting: Tamar dresses up as a prostitute and her father in law is seduced by her. Ancient commentators, both Jewish and Christian, assumed that there must be some deeper meaning behind this chapter, and it was precisely this theme of yearning for the Messiah that they introduced into their exegesis of the episode. Ephrem mentions the episode of Tamar and Judah on several occasions. In the following, he is addressing Christ: Ephrem earlier explains that the episode occurred so that Sarah might learn that it was she who was infertile, not Abraham. 6 Ephrem returns to this episode in Madroshe on Virginity 22:17–18, but unfortunately the text is damaged at this point. 5

13. ST EPHREM ON WOMEN IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

145

The adultery of Tamar was chaste – because of You. It was for You she thirsted, O Pure Fountain. Judah cheated her of drinking You (i.e. by withholding his son Shelah from marrying her). … She was a widow for Your sake; she yearned for You, pursued You, and even became a prostitute for the sake of You. It was for You she longed, she persevered and proved to be a chaste woman, 7 for it was You she loved. (Madroshe on Nativity 9:10–11)

Elsewhere Ephrem is more brief:

It was because the King (i.e. the promised Messiah) was hidden in Judah that Tamar stole him from Judah’s loins; today there has shone forth the splendour of the beauty whose hiddenness she had loved. (Madroshe on the Nativity 1:12)

And elsewhere, equally briefly:

Tamar had faith that from Judah there would arise the King whose symbol (rozeh) she had stolen. (Madroshe on Virginity 22:20)

Before leaving Tamar, let me mention a delightful play on words that Ephrem introduces at one point in connection with Tamar’s name, breaking it up into two elements, ta and mar(y), ‘come, my Lord’. Ephrem writes: Let Tamar rejoice that her Lord has come, for her name announced the Son of her Lord, calling out to you to come to her. (Madroshe on the Nativity 9:12)

Once again, it was left for later writers to pick up and develop the exegetical seed that Ephrem had sown: in this case it was Jacob of Serugh, whose mimro on Tamar is one of his masterpieces. 8 It is significant that Jacob should give a hint that Ephrem was his source of inspiration right at the beginning of his poem, for the In Syriac, mqadashto, in the technical sense, again referring to marital chastity. The Hebrew poet Yannai, a contemporary of Jacob of Serugh, likewise plays on the various senses of the root q-d-sh in connection with Tamar; the passage is quoted in Le Muséon 115 (2002), p. 305). 8 There is an edition, with English translation and annotation, in Le Muséon 115 (2002), pp. 279–315; the Syriac text is also to be found in the additional volume VI of the Gorgias Press’s reprint (Piscataway NJ, 2006) of P. Bedjan’s five volumes of Jacob’s mimre. 7

146

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

very first words contain the invocation ta mar(y), ‘Come, my Lord’, reflecting Ephrem’s word play. Perhaps even more surprising than Ephrem’s ‘rehabilitation’ of Tamar is his treatment of the wife of Joseph’s master Potiphar who, according to the very next chapter of Genesis, tried to get Joseph to sleep with her (Gen. 39:12). In the biblical text we hear nothing further of the women, once she had denounced Joseph to her husband, resulting in Joseph’s imprisonment (Gen. 39:20). Ephrem, however, reintroduces her after Joseph has finally been released from prison, his intention being to indicate that she repented of her earlier action of falsely accusing Joseph. I shall let Ephrem tell the whole story in his own words, beginning at the beginning: After Joseph had been sold to Potiphar, Potiphar became rich because of Joseph – as had been the case with Laban because of Joseph’s father. Potiphar’s wife fell in love with Joseph, saying to him, ‘Sleep with me’. When she got tired of winning him over by artifice, with him refusing to listen to her, she cleverly brought him into the bedchamber so that she could overpower him. But when she grabbed his garment, he let go of it in her hands and escaped out into the street. Because she imagined she would become a laughing stock to her servants, the woman cried out at the top of her voice. The members of her household gathered to act as witnesses for her – not to what she was wanting to do, but to what she was prepared to say.

Joseph could have escaped, and by so doing gone back to his father’s house; instead, he rejected the idea of running away and thus avoiding disgrace, choosing instead to persevere until he saw how the dreams he had seen would turn out.

His master turned up and listened to what his wife told him, how there were witnesses to confirm her words. He also saw Joseph’s garment which told against him. Accordingly he threw him into prison without his garment – just as (his brothers) had thrown him into the pit in the wilderness without his special coat. (Section XXXV:1–3)

At this point Ephrem continues with the Genesis narrative (Gen. 40–41), culminating in Joseph’s release and his being put in a position of authority over all Egypt (Gen. 41:43). It is here that Ephrem re-introduces, not only Potiphar, but also his wife: When Potiphar saw that it was only in the matter of the throne that Joseph was less than Pharaoh, he hurriedly went home. In his haste to tell his wife the news of Joseph’s high position he resembled his wife when she went out to meet him and denounce Joseph to him. He told her, ‘Joseph, our slave, has become our master! The man we sent off to prison without his garment has been clothed by Pharaoh in a garment of fine linen! The man we left lying in prison is now seated on Pharaoh’s chariot! The man we put in chains is wearing a necklace of gold! How can I turn to look on this man – someone my eyes cannot gaze upon?’

‘Do not have any fear of Joseph’, she said to him, ‘you did not do him any wrong: he knows that the disgrace that came upon him in our house – whether justly or wrongly – was because of me. So go without any fear and join the magnates and

13. ST EPHREM ON WOMEN IN THE OLD TESTAMENT commanders who are accompanying his chariot on foot; otherwise he will imagine that we are upset by his high rank. To show you that he is not a bad person, I am going to tell you the truth today: it is quite the opposite of my earlier falsehood: I was in love with Joseph at the time I wronged him; it was I who seized his garment, because I was overcome by his radiant beauty. If he is upright, it is me he will he cause to grieve, not you. But if he is upright, he will not even cause me to grieve, because if he had not been falsely accused he would not have been imprisoned, and if he had never been imprisoned he would never have interpreted Pharaoh’s dreams – and so come to this high position that you have told me about. Even though it was not we who raised him up, it is as if it was us who had done it, seeing that was because of our humiliating treatment of him that he has been glorified and become second in the realm! (Section XXXV:7–8)

147

Ephrem goes on to tell how Joseph indeed showed no resentment towards his former master – just as he showed no resentment towards his brothers, being aware that it was all part of God’s purpose. Here as elsewhere Ephrem is reading between the lines of the biblical narrative, and in particular he is paying attention to what the biblical text does not say: whereas it might be expected that Joseph, once in a position of authority, might have brought the woman who had falsely accused him to justice, nothing is said of this in the biblical text, and it is from this silence that Ephrem deduces that she repented of her deed and confessed to her husband what had really happened. Ephrem then provides his own narrative in order to illustrate his interpretation of the biblical text’s silence, and in so doing he shows an astonishing delicacy in the way he portrays to woman: first, she is concerned for her husband who is afraid Joseph will take vengeance on his former owners for having him thrown into prison: having become aware of Joseph’s upright character, through his refusal of her former advances, she is able to reassure her husband that, if Joseph is going to take vengeance on anyone, it will be on her, seeing that she – ‘rightly or wrongly’ – had brought about his disgrace. By her added words ‘rightly or wrongly’ Ephrem has her prepare her husband for her confession of what had actually occurred between her and Joseph: she was the one who was in the wrong. Then, right at the end of her words to her husband Potiphar, she returns to Joseph’s upright character: she is now so confident in the nobility of Joseph’s character that she suggests that he will realise that his humiliation, brought about by her and her husband, was what had ultimately led to his rise to such a high position, second only to Pharaoh. Ephrem then ends his rewritten biblical narrative by stating that Joseph did indeed receive Potiphar among those who accompanied his chariot. With this, Ephrem introduces his own silence, by saying nothing further about Potiphar’s wife: it is up to the reader to deduce, from the combination of her confession and Joseph’s upright character, that he will have forgiven her the wrong she had done to him – just as he forgave his brothers. Ephrem’s handling of Potiphar’s wife is remarkable not only for the boldness of its sympathetic understanding, but also for the fact that it marks an early step on

148

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

the road towards the transformation of the biblical story in the Qur’an, where she also confesses (Surah 12:51), and in the later Muslim traditions concerning Yusuf and Zuleikha where, in Sufi tradition, she becomes a model of repentance. 9 This, however, is an aspect which deserves separate treatment and cannot be explored here. The Commentary on Genesis has no mention at all of another woman who indeed became Joseph’s wife, namely Aseneth, daughter of an Egyptian priest. It is unlikely that Ephrem will have known the Greek narrative concerning Aseneth, since it only got into Syriac in the early sixth century. 10 On the other hand one might have expected Aseneth to have received at least a passing mention in the Commentary on Genesis, seeing that she was the mother of Ephrem’s biblical namesake, Ephraim (Gen. 41:52), Joseph’s second son by Aseneth, but Ephrem says nothing about here there. Aseneth indeed receives a brief mention elsewhere, in the Madroshe on Virginity 21:9, where she is aptly, in view of her Egyptian origin, described as ‘a symbol of the Church of the Gentiles’. *

The examples I have quoted amply illustrate how Ephrem sometimes goes out of his way to portray biblical women in a positive light, even in cases, such as that of Potiphar’s wife, where there is no real hint for such an interpretation present in the biblical text. 11 A study of his portrayal of New Testament women would probably come up with a similar picture. 12 In his concern and sympathy for women Ephrem would appear to be unique among the Church Fathers, the majority of whom show little or no interest in this respect. Ephrem’s very positive attitude towards women is in fact reflected in other aspects of his writing, where several recent studies have pointed to the pervasiveness of female imagery throughout his works, and in particular his use of this imagery in connection with the Deity: Ephrem not infrequently speaks of the ‘womb’ of the Father, as well as the womb of Mary; and on one occasion 13 he describes Christ as ‘the living Breast’ from which the dead have sucked and come alive. 14 The metaphors of conception and birthgiving are to be found every-

In the Qur’an she is still nameless. For Ephrem’s possible role in providing the background to her confession there, see H. Speyer, Die biblische Erzählungen im Qoran (Hildersheim, 1961), pp. 210–11. 10 The Syriac translation, by Mushe of Aggel, is preserved at the beginning of the Ps. Zacharias’ Ecclesiastical History (I.6), ed. E.W. Brooks, CSCO Scriptores Syri 38 (1919, repr. 1953); Brooks also published an English translation, Joseph and Asenath (London, 1918). 11 Another good example of this sort can be found in Ephrem’s comments on Lot’s daughters (Commentary on Genesis XVI:8–13). 12 See, from a wider perspective, S.A. Harvey, ‘Spoken words, voiced silence: biblical women in Syriac tradition’, Journal of Early Christian Studies 9 (2001), pp. 105–31. 13 Madroshe on the Nativity 4:150. 14 On this aspect see especially K.E. McVey, ‘Ephrem the Syrian’s use of female metaphors to describe the Deity’, Journal of Ancient Christianity 5 (2001), pp. 261–88, and her ‘Im9

13. ST EPHREM ON WOMEN IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

149

where in his poetry. It is interesting to note that, whereas female imagery is not uncommonly found in connection with both the Father and the Son, Ephrem is deliberately reserved in using it of the Holy Spirit. The reason for this will be clear from one of the passages quoted earlier from the Commentary on the Diatessaron: the fact that the Holy Spirit was still regularly treated as grammatically feminine in Ephrem’s day had led some to conceive of the Trinity as Father, Mother and Son, reflecting a triad of deities such as that of Hatra, where inscriptions frequently mention ‘our Lord and our Lady and the Son of our Lord and Lady’. 15 It is very likely that such pagan cults still survived in Ephrem’s time. Early on in this paper I quoted from Jacob of Serugh’s panegyric of St Ephrem. It will be appropriate to give him the last words too: O daughters of the Peoples , draw near and learn how to sing praise to Him who has saved you from the error of your fathers. It is from the worship of dead idols that you have been rescued: give praise to Him through whose death you have been liberated. You have put on glory from the baptismal waters, like your brothers; render thanks with a loud voice, just as they do. From the single holy Body have you received, like your brothers, and from the single Cup of New Life you have had delight. Both you and they have a single salvation: why then have you not learned to sing praise with a loud voice? Your silent mouth, which your mother Eve closed, is now opened through Mary, your sister, so as to give praise. Aged Eve tied your tongues with a cord of silence, but the Virgin’s Son has undone them so that you can shout out. …Up till now you women have been brought low because of Eve, but from now on you stand up with Mary to give praise. …Uncover your faces to sing praise without shame to Him who gave you freedom of speech at His birth’. It was with words such as these that the wise Ephrem was exhorting them to make their singing into songs of instruction 16. (103–109, 111, 113–4)

ages of joy in Ephrem’s Hymns on Paradise: returning to the womb and the breast’, Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 3 (2003), pp. 59–77. See also my The Luminous Eye: the Spiritual World Vision of St Ephrem (Kalamazoo, 1992), pp. 168–72. 15 E.g. inscriptions nos. 25, 26, 29, 30, 52, 53, 74, 75 etc. (mrn wmrtn wbr mryn) in B. Aggoula, Inventaire des inscriptions hatréennes (Paris, 1991). For the Holy Spirit as feminine, see my ‘“Come, compassionate Mother, … come, Holy Spirit”: a forgotten aspect of early Eastern Christian imagery’, Aram 3 (1991), pp. 249–57. 16 Reading netlon for netel, which makes no sense; the other manuscripts have removed the idea of women teaching by substituting ‘to lend their mouths to give praise with wonderful voices’.

14

THE GUIDANCE OF ST EPHREM: A VISION TO LIVE BY * A reader might well ask, ‘what is the relevance to the topic of the Practice of the Presence of God of a writer who lived long ago and who came from a far away country?’ St Ephrem, however, was proclaimed a ‘Doctor of the universal Church’, now approaching a century ago, by Pope Benedict XV (in 1920), and on these grounds alone it would seem that he is at least someone who has something of value to say to the Church in the modern world. Who, then, is St Ephrem? Born in the early years of the fourth century, he died the same year as St Athanasius, in 373, when St Augustine was in his last year as a teenager. Most of his life was spent serving as a deacon in Nisibis, in what is today south-east Turkey, on the border with Syria, but in the fourth century in the easternmost province of the Roman Empire, on the border with the Persian Empire. The last ten years of his life were spent as a refugee, Nisibis having been handed over to Persia in the peace treaty of 363; he eventually settled in Edessa (modern Şanliurfa), whose king Abgar V was said to have corresponded with Jesus. Ephrem was already famous in his own day as a poet, writing in the dialect of Aramaic known as Syriac. A large body of his poems survives. Ephrem was not just a very fine religious poem, but at the same time he was also a profound theologian who deliberately chose to express his theological vision in poetry, rather than (as we today would have expected) in prose. It is something of this vision, which can inspire today as much as it did in the fourth century, that I will attempt to outline here. Ephrem’s spiritual vision is not something that he himself ever describes in any single place, or at any one time; rather, it constitutes the hidden substructure of his poetry, a substructure of which the reader of his poetry only gradually becomes aware as she or he grows more familiar with the poems. Ephrem’s understanding of the world and its relationship to its Creator is essentially holistic and he discovers interconnections everywhere: these may be, as it were, on a horizontal plane, between everyone and everything, not just in the present, but also in the past and in Originally published in M. Laird and S. Treflé Hidden (eds.), The Practice of the Presence of God. Theology as a Way of Life (London, 2017), 109–19. *

151

152

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

the future. At the same time, the interconnections also function on a vertical plane, between denizens of the created world and their Creator, there being a sharp divide, or ‘chasm’ (as Ephrem terms it), between the two, over which only the Creator can cross. Thus the interconnections are multidimensional, and at the same time, both synchronic and diachronic. {110} With his theological and spiritual vision it is not so much some specific guidance on a spiritual path that Ephrem is offering us, but rather a particular mode of perception by which we can live and thereby discover deeper meaning in life. This mode of perception brings an awareness of the intricate interconnections between the material and the spiritual worlds, and between each of us as individual parts of creation and the rest of creation – both fellow human beings, and the natural world around us. As an essential starting point for the journey of discovery an openness of mind is required, and the willingness to concede that there is at least a possibility that meaning might be found in the created world around us. With this minimal element of faith (as Ephrem would describe it) being present, the interior, or spiritual, eye is enabled dimly to see pointers to divine reality, and these pointers in turn encourage and strengthen the eye of faith so that it then becomes increasingly enabled to seen these pointers to a different reality more clearly, thus proceeding, as it were, by a spiral of reciprocity: as the faith grows stronger, so does the vision of the interior eye. One might compare the process to the different ways in which one can see (or fail to see) a spider’s web: the awareness that spiders’ webs exist corresponds to the initial element of faith, but ordinarily they are invisible, or rather, simply not seen; it is only when one catches them against a particular light, or above all, when they are covered with drops of dew, that they become clearly visible. Ephrem sees the principle of cooperation, or synergy, as fundamental to the ways in the relationship between the God the Creator and humanity, as part of his creation: the initiative of crossing over the ‘chasm’ which separates creation from its Creator has first to be taken by God himself, who then provides humanity with these ‘pointers’ within creation, by which humans can acquire a knowledge of his hidden existence. The possibility of gaining some knowledge of God is thus offered to each individual human being: it is not imposed, for the individual’s response will depend on the use of the gift to humanity of free-will. As Ephrem points out: Any kind of adornment that is the result of force is not genuine, for it is merely imposed. Herein lies the greatness of God’s gift (sc. of free-will) that people can adorn themselves of their own accord, seeing that God has removed all compulsion. (Nisibene hymns, 16:11)

What are these ‘pointers’ to a divine reality? Ephrem’s term is the Syriac word rāzā, which is usually translated ‘mystery’, and the plural, rāzē, corresponds to the Greek ta mysteria, ‘the (Eucharistic) Mysteries’, or Sacraments. Very frequently, however, in translating Ephrem’s poetry it seems more helpful to employ ‘symbol(s)’, but with the immediate proviso that ‘symbol’ is to be understood, not in the weak modern sense of something essentially different {111} from what is symbolized, but in the

14. THE GUIDANCE OF ST EPHREM: A VISION TO LIVE BY

153

strong sense, as found in all early Christian literature, according to which the symbol is intimately – one might say, ontologically – connected with what it symbolizes: what connects symbol (rāzā) and what is symbolized (shrārā, ‘divine reality’, literally ‘truth’) is what Ephrem describes as a ‘hidden power’. These rāzē symbols constitute the means by which God reveals himself to humanity; they are present, but latent, everywhere and at all times, to be discovered in God’s two ‘witnesses’ (John 8:17) to his existence with which he has provided humanity, namely, ‘Nature and the Book’, the natural world and the Scriptures: Wherever you turn your eyes, there is God’s rāzā/symbol, whatever your read, there you will find his types. (Hymns on Virginity 20:12)

In more detail:

In his book Moses described the creation of the natural world, so that both Nature and his Book might testify to the Creator, the natural world through people’s use of it, the Book through their reading of it. They are the witnesses which reach everywhere, they are to be found at all times, present at every hour, rebuking the unbeliever who denies the Creator. (Hymns on Paradise 5:2)

While the initiative of making these rāzē, or pointers to a knowledge of himself, has been taken by God, it remains up to each individual to exercise their free-will in deciding whether or not to make use of this possibility of acquiring a knowledge of God. Ephrem thus addresses Christ, Lord, your symbols are everywhere, yet you are hidden from everywhere. (Hymns on Faith 4:9)

Hidden from the physical eye, these symbols are nevertheless capable of being seen by the interior eye that has already been mentioned. This is the eye of the heart, the focal point of a person’s spiritual being. According to Ephrem’s understanding of optics, the physical eye sees all the better, the more it is filled by light. His interior eye functions in an analogous way, but this time it is faith, {112} not light, which enables it to see, and so the greater the faith, the more rāzē does this interior eye perceive. While it is the presence of faith, even if only a minimum, that is the essential starting point if the interior eye is to begin to function, there are three further elements that need to be present if the vision of the interior eye is to function properly. The first is indicated in the Beatitudes of the Gospels, ‘blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God’ (Matthew 5:8). Only if the interior eye is ‘pure’ and uncloud-

154

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

ed by sin will it be able to perceive the rāzē fully and thereby come to ‘see God’. A second requirement, according to Ephrem, is right belief (not dissimilar to the Buddhist requirement of ‘right view’). What Ephrem has in mind here is an orthodox faith concerning Christ, as opposed to some form of ‘Arian’ teaching, subordinating him to the Father. This is necessary since any wrong belief would lead to a skewed vision. Finally, and in many ways most important of all, there is the need for a right attitude, which means an attitude of love. In Ephrem’s own words: Your fountain, Lord, is hidden from the person who does not thirst for you; your treasury is empty to the person who rejects you. Love is the treasurer of your heavenly treasure store. (Hymns on Faith 32:3).

Love, however, needs to be accompanied by ‘Truth’, by which Ephrem here means orthodox belief: Truth and Love are wings that cannot be separated, for Truth without Love is not able to fly, so too, Love without Truth is not able to soar up, for their yoke is one of harmony. (Hymns on Faith 20:12)

In a similar vein Ephrem ends one of his hymns in the cycle of fifteen meditative poems on the theme of Paradise: With Love and instruction commingled with Truth the intellect can grow and become rich with new things as it meditates with discernment on the treasure store of hidden symbols/mysteries (rāzē). For my part, I have loved, and so learned, and become assured that Paradise possesses {113} the haven of the victorious. As I have been held worthy to perceive it, so make me worthy to enter it. (Hymns on Paradise 6:25)

The presence of ‘the hidden power’ in the symbols/mysteries that are latent in the created world lend to the natural world a sacramental character. Put differently, the process of the interior eye’s perception becoming more and more illumined by faith leads to a sacralizing vision of the world around us, and once everything is seen as sacred, this awareness then requires that the natural world be treated with reverence and made use of with a proper sense of responsibility. Conversely, wrong action or

14. THE GUIDANCE OF ST EPHREM: A VISION TO LIVE BY

155

wrong choice on the part of human beings has consequences in the natural world, as Ephrem points out, using the narrative of the Fall in Genesis 2–3 to make his point: The sprouting of the thorn (Gen. 3:18) testified to the novel sprouting of wrong actions, for thorns did not sprout as long as wrong-doing had not yet burst forth, but once there had peered out hidden wrong choices made by free-will, then the visible thorns began to peer out from the earth. (Hymns on Faith 28:9)

Elsewhere Ephrem gives the example of Jezebel’s evil action in causing the miscarriage of justice (I Kings 21) as having a repercussion in the natural world: Because Jezebel defrauded Truth the earth refused its produce, the womb of the earth held back, as a reproof, the seeds that the farmer had lent it. (Hymns on Virginity 7:3)

Very much like the so-called ‘butterfly effect’ in the world of physics, human sin, in Ephrem’s understanding, can have an effect on the natural world in all sorts of unexpected places. Turning more specifically now to ‘the Book’, we can find much in Ephrem’s approach that is both illuminating and helpful, especially in the context of any lectio divina. For many readers of the Bible, both ancient and modern, the anthropomorphic language of many passages in the Old Testament is a stumbling block. Ephrem has his own way of dealing with the problem, making use of the clothing imagery that came to be used at a very date in the Syriac-speaking Church to describe the Incarnation. Already in the Syriac translation of the Nicene Creed, corresponding to the Greek and Latin ‘he became incarnate’ (literally, ‘enfleshed’), the phrase ‘he put on the body’ was used. With this in {114} mind, Ephrem speaks of the Incarnation being preceded by God having ‘put on names’ in the Old Testament, that is, descending to a human level and allowing himself to be spoken of in human language and with terms that have nothing to do with his true nature. To illustrate what he means, Ephrem used the analogy of a human being teaching a parrot – his fellow creature – to speak by means of using a mirror: A person who is teaching a parrot to speak hides behind a mirror and teaches it in this way: when the bird turns in the direction of the voice speaking it finds in front of its eyes its own resemblance reflected; it imagines that it is another parrot, conversing with itself. The man puts the bird’s image in front of it, so that thereby it might learn to speak.

The bird is related to the man, but although this relationship exists, the man beguiles and teaches

156

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD the parrot something alien to itself by means of itself; in this way he speaks with it. The Divine Being, who in all things is exalted above all things, in his love has bent down from on high and acquired from us our own customs: he has laboured by every means so as to turn all to himself. (Hymns on Faith 31:6–7).

To take the terms used of God in the biblical text literally is totally misguided; indeed, If someone concentrates his attention solely on the terms used of God’s Majesty, he abuses and misrepresents that Majesty by means of those very same terms with which God has clothed himself for humanity’s own benefit, and that person is ungrateful to the Grace which has bent down its stature to the level of human childishness. Even though God has nothing in common with it, he has clothed himself in the likeness of humanity. (Hymns on Paradise 11:6)

Instead, in reading the biblical text,

We should realize that, if God had not put on these terms, it would not have been possible for him to speak with us human beings. By means of what belongs to us he has drawn close to us: {115} he has clothed himself in our language so that he might clothe us with his mode of life. He asked for our form and put this on, and then, as a father with his children, he spoke with our childish state. (Hymns on Faith 31:2)

A further point that Ephrem insists upon is the plurality of spiritual interpretations that can be found in the biblical text. Whereas in any academic approach to the text, there is (at least in theory) only one correct historical interpretation, from Ephrem’s standpoint (which is basically that of any lectio divina), provided that the biblical text is approached with his pairing of ‘Truth and Love’, it is capable of yielding up an infinite number of insights or meanings, each of which will be valid for a particular individual at a particular time. In a prose work Ephrem compares the Scriptures to an ever-flowing fountain: just as everyone can drink from it as much as they like, yet its water is never exhausted, so too the spiritual meanings to be found in the Scriptures are never ending: Anyone who encounters Scripture should not suppose that the single one of its riches is the only one to exist; rather, he should realize that he himself is only capable of discovering that one out of the many riches in it. (Commentary on the Diatessaron, or Gospel Harmony, I.18)

14. THE GUIDANCE OF ST EPHREM: A VISION TO LIVE BY

157

The two different approaches to the biblical text need to be seen to be complementary, and not in conflict with one another. It is only when one of the two approaches makes claims of exclusivity, and denies the validity of the other, that a conflict arises. Ephrem himself was well aware that these two very different approaches existed, functioning on different planes, and he calls the one ‘factual’ and the other ‘spiritual’. Many other early Christian writers make similar distinctions, while much later on, in the medieval West, a more detailed fourfold categorization was developed. In several places Ephrem describes his own experience of reading Scripture. In one of his Hymns on Paradise, which constitute an extended meditation on the meaning of the Paradise narrative in Genesis, he writes: I read the opening of this book and was filled with joy, for its verses and lines spread out their arms to welcome me; the first rushed out and kissed me, and led me on to its companion; and when I reached that verse wherein is written the story of Paradise, it lifted me up and transported me from the bosom of the book to the very bosom of Paradise. The eye and the mind travelled over the lines as over a bridge, and entered together the story of Paradise. The eye as it read transported the mind; in return the mind, too, gave the eye rest from its reading, for when the Book had been read the eye had rest, but the mind was engaged.

{116}

Both the bridge and the gate of Paradise did I find in this Book; I crossed over and entered – my eye indeed remained outside but my mind entered within. I began to wander amid things not described. This is a luminous height, clear, lofty and fair:

158

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD Scripture names it Eden, the summit of all blessings. (Hymns on Paradise 5:3–5)

Very much in harmony with Ephrem’s insistence on the multiplicity of spiritual meanings in any given passage of Scripture is his dislike of definitions, etymologically ‘setting boundaries’ (Latin fines), in areas of theology that lie beyond the ‘chasm’ that separates creation from the Creator. As Ephrem himself puts it, A person who is capable of investigating becomes the container of what he investigates; a knowledge which is capable of containing the Omniscient is greater than him, for it has proved capable of measuring the whole of him. A person who investigates the Father and So is thus greater than them! Far be it, then, and something anathema that the Father and Son should be investigated while dust and ashes exalts itself. (Hymns on Faith 9:16)

Rather, this is the area where one can only speak in terms of paradoxes, and here it is helpful to imagine a circle, the central point of which is left unidentified, but all around the circumference are sets of paradoxes illustrating different aspects of the Hidden and the Revealed in the Godhead:

{117}

One kind of knowledge [of God] is of what is revealed, the other of what is hidden: knowledge with respect to his revealed state, and non-knowledge with respect to his hiddenness. (Verse homilies on Faith, VI, 289–92)

Ephrem has a whole range of paradoxes that serve to illustrate the mystery of the incarnation, such as ‘the Exalted One who became lowly’, ‘the Great One who became small’, ‘the Rich One who became poor’, and so on; it is at the point where all these paradoxes around the circumference of the circle cross each other that ‘truth’ (shrara), or divine reality, is to be located. The multiple paradoxes thus, as it were, spark off in the human mind a glimpse into what cannot ever be properly ‘defined’ by the human mind. Underlying so much of Ephrem’s thinking about the character of the Christian life is the idea of synergy, the interplay between what is offered by God and the response on the part of the individual human being. In the case of Ephrem’s experience reading the Paradise narrative of Genesis, it was his response, accompanied by Truth and Love, that resulted in the illumination he received. The supreme example of this synergy, or working together, of the human and the divine was of course provided by the narrative of Mary’s response to the angel Gabriel in Luke’s Gospel. Ephrem, in common with many other early Christian writers, contrasted Mary’s ‘wise’ questioning of the angel with Eve’s failure to question critically the serpent’s misleading representation of God’s words. Mary’s co-operation with the Holy Spirit

14. THE GUIDANCE OF ST EPHREM: A VISION TO LIVE BY

159

led to her giving birth to God the Word. In the course of the Christian life, Ephrem sees that the locus for a creative birthgiving is present in every celebration of the Eucharistic Mysteries: there the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Bread and Wine provides a counterpart to the descent of the same Spirit upon Mary; accordingly, it is Mary, with her response, who provides a paradigm for each individual Christian, inviting a similar response to Spirit’s presence, resulting in a spiritual birthgiving. Addressing Christ, Ephrem writes: In your Bread there is hidden the Spirit who is not consumed, in your Wine there dwells the Fire that is not drunk: the Spirit is in your Bread, the Fire in your Wine – a manifest wonder, that our lips have received! (Hymns on Faith 10:8)

{118}

And a little further on he exclaims,

See, Fire and Spirit are in the womb of her who bore you, See, Fire and Spirit are in the river in which you were baptised, Fire and Spirit are in our baptismal font, in the Bread and the Cup are Fire and Holy Spirit. (Hymns on Faith 10:17)

Since for Ephrem the aim of the Christian life is the recovery of the divine image (Gen. 1:27) and thus becoming ‘conformed’ with Christ (Philippians 3:10), the encounter of the individual Christian with the Holy Spirit on receiving the Mysteries at Communion should, by implication, result in a spiritual birthgiving that consists in an ever closer conformity with Christ, so that the image of God in each individual (Gen. 1:26–7), like a polished mirror, finally clearly reflects Christ, its prototype, having cleansed away all the grime that had previously caused the internal mirror of the soul to function properly: One complains about a mirror if its clarity is obscured because it has become spotted, or grime has built up, covering it over for those who look into it. (Hymns on Faith 34:4)

The refrain for this hymn is ‘Blessed is he who has polished our mirror’, and here one needs to recall that in antiquity a mirror was not made of glass, but of metal, and so it required constant polishing if it was to provide a clear reflection. In another hymn compares the Eucharist to the Wedding Feast of Cana, but now Christ is no longer the guest, but the Bridegroom. Once again addressing Christ, Ephrem says, here is your own pure and fair wedding feast … The soul is your bride, the body your bridal chamber; your guests are the senses and the thoughts; and if a single body is a wedding-feast for you, how great is your banquet for the whole Church! (Hymns on Faith 14:4–5)

160

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

Ephrem and many other Syriac writers speak of the heavenly ‘Bridal Chamber’ when referring to the Kingdom of Heaven. In this passage Ephrem uses the same imagery to indicate the potential intimacy of the union of love between each individual soul and Christ that is offered at each Eucharist. Ephrem offers a wonderfully holistic way of looking at the world from a spiritual perspective, thus suggesting to us a way of finding meaning in life, of discovering the intricate network of interconnections between this world and the heavenly world, of realizing the interdependence between everyone and everything. It is a sacralising vision, and as an important consequence, a very ecological one, which is made all the more relevant in view of his emphasis on {119} the right use of our freewill – especially relevant when seen in the context of the ‘dominion’ granted to human beings over the rest of the creation in Genesis 1:28, which is very closely linked with their being created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26–7). Ephrem emphasises that this authority accordingly carries with it the responsibility to use our freewill in right and just ways, in order to reflect those of God, while the abuse of this God-given authority through the wrong actions carried out by our freewill will result in serious consequences in unexpected places. He also offers us a very creative way of approaching the biblical text from a standpoint of faith: for any true lectio divina to bear fruit, three things are required: love, purity of heart, and right belief. With the presence of these three prerequisites, the biblical text becomes like an inexhaustible fountain from which to drink. In the same passage where Ephrem compares the biblical text to a fountain, he points out that the facets of God’s words are more numerous than the faces of those who learn from them. God has depicted his words with many beauties, so that each of those who learn from them can examine that aspect of them which he likes. And God has hidden within his words all sorts of treasures, so that each of us can be enriched by them from what aspects we meditate on. (Commentary on the Diatessaron I:18)

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING

English translations of a number of hymns can be found in the following: K. McVey, Ephrem the Syrian, Hymns (Classics of Western Spirituality, 1989). S.P. Brock, The Harp of the Spirit. Poems of Saint Ephrem the Syrian (3rd edn, Aquila Books, 2013).

Many short extracts can be found in: R. Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom (1975; re-edition, Gorgias Press 2004) S.P. Brock, The Luminous Eye: the Spiritual World Vision of St Ephrem (Cistercian Publications 1992). K. den Biesen, Simple and Bold. Ephrem’s Art of Symbolic Thought (Gorgias Press 2006).

15

EPHREM’S LETTER TO PUBLIUS * Two extensive extracts from a letter by Ephrem, addressed to Publius (Πόπλιος) 1 are preserved in BM Add. 7190, ff. 188a–193a, a manuscript 2 containing a collection of miscellaneous extracts by Greek and Syriac writers on mainly ascetic subjects, and dated by Wright to the twelfth century. 3 The letter appears to have gone almost totally unnoticed apart from Burkitt’s brief discussion of its Gospel quotations in his book St Ephraim’s Quotations from the Gospel, p. 70–2. 4 On the basis of his discovery of Old Syriac and Diatessaron elements in its quotations of Luke 16:25 and 12:16–20 Burkitt concluded that the letter was quite probably genuine, and I see nothing in its contents which militates against such a conclusion: the artistically balanced prose style, the imagery (in particular that of the mirror), the phraseology and the thought are all in favour of the attribution given in the manuscript. 5 Nothing is known of Publius, and the only fact that emerges from {262} the letter itself is that he had been (perhaps recently) baptized, for Ephrem probably refers to the “imprint” that he had received (§17, see commentary). The Latin name of Originally published in Le Muséon 89 (1986), 261–305. A brief outline of the contents and significance is given in An unpublished letter of St Ephrem, in Parole de l’Orient, 4 (1973), pp. 317–22. 2 ROSEN-FORSHALL, Catalogus, no XLIX.48; the manuscript also contains some metrical pieces by Ephrem (nos 57–60). ROSEN-FORSHALL dated the manuscript to the 13th century, which is certainly too late. In Parole de l’Orient 4 (1973) p. 317, I suggested that the manuscript might be of Melkite provenance, since it included an extract of John Climacus; this provenance, however, is far from certain, and it may be noted that an extract from that writer also occurs in Cambridge Add. 2012, f. 178a, a manuscript which is certainly of Syrian Orthodox provenance. 3 WRIGHT, Catalogue, p. 1206. 4 Also used by LELOIR. The Letter’s existence is noted by A. BAUMSTARK, Gesch. der syr. Literatur, p. 38, and by I. ORTIZ DE URBINA, Patrologia Syriaca (ed. 2), p. 69. 5 For detailed parallels, see commentary. *

1

163

164

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

Ephrem’s correspondent may suggest that the letter belongs to the last ten years of Ephrem’s life, when he was settled in Edessa. 6 The letter is essentially a meditation on the last judgement, taking as its starting point the imagery of the Gospel as a mirror (mahzita) in which the viewer can see his inward soul reflected in its true colours, and thus perceive what will be his lot at the last judgement. The image of the mirror is a favourite one of Ephrem’s, and has been studied by Dom E. Beck in his article Das Bild vom Spiegel bei Ephräm. 7 How many parallels in phraseology and thought this letter has in the matter of this (and other) imagery, can readily be seen from the commentary that follows the translation. The nature of these parallels suggests to me that we are dealing with the same author, and not an imitator: the parallels never consist in quotations of phrases, obviously lifted from the genuine Ephrem corpus, but are far more subtle. 8 Also in favour of the letter’s authenticity (or at least its early date) are the biblical quotations, which as Burkitt already noticed, contain many archaic features (on these see below). Ephrem’s letter does not appear to have left its mark on any later writer, at least as far as my reading goes, although there is just a possibility that Narsai’s 23rd homily contains some allusions to it. 9

GENRE AND STYLE

The letter as a means of conveying exhortation and instruction is a genre well known from early Syriac literature, outstanding examples being Mara’s letter to his son, Aphrahat’s Demonstrations (described as “letters” in the colophon of BM Add. 17182 of AD 512), and Ephrem’s Discourses addressed to Hypatius (described by Ephrem himself as letters, and likewise in the title of BM Add. 14574). It is, nevertheless, not in Ephrem’s Letters to Hypatius that our letter finds its closest parallel among Ephrem’s genuine prose works, 10 {263} but in the Memra on our Lord, for, whereas the Letters to Hypatius are written in the straightforward prose that characterizes the biblical commentaries, the Memra on our Lord, in common with the Letter to Publius, employs a highly artistic prose style 11 that is also to be found, out-

Compare certain of his Prose Refulations, addressed to Hypatius. O.C.P. 19 (1953), pp. 5–24. 8 It may be noted that there is high concentration of parallels in H. Virg. XXXI. 9 See Commentary to §§ 9, 22. On the other hand Narsai’s Homily on Dives and Lazarus contains no hints of any knowledge of our Letter (the same applies to the homilies on this parable by Isaac of Antioch and Jacob of Serugh). 10 Ephrem is also accredited with a Letter to the Mountaineers, but this is probably not genuine (pace VÖÖBUS). The extract from a Letter to the men of Homs attributed to Ephrem in BM Add. 17193, f. 10b–11b, is, in my opinion, unlikely on stylistic grounds to be genuine; see now my edition in Oriens Christianus 86 (2002), 1–12. 11 Cp BECK’S remarks in C.S.C.O., Scr. Syri 116, p. I. 6 7

15. EPHREM’S LETTER TO PUBLIUS

165

side Ephrem, in parts of Aphrahat’s Demonstrations 12 the Acts of Thomas, certain of the Persian Martyr Acts, and elsewhere. 13 The existence of this artistic prose style – which has much in common with the contemporary Greek manifestations of Kunstprosa – has barely been recognized, let alone discussed, in the standard histories of Syriac literature, although it certainly deserves a proper analysis, and it would be of considerable interest to know what relationship it has to its Greek counterpart. A detailed investigation of this phenomenon of course lies outsides the bounds of the present article, and here it must suffice simply to give a few examples of the elaborately structured prose that is to be found in the Letter to Publius, and to point out some of the main characteristics; at the end I also give some examples from Ephrem’s only other work that employs this type of prose, the Memra on our Lord, and from his near contemporary Aphrahat, 14 who at times employs a similar style. For our present purpose it will be most convenient to give the examples in transcription, in the order in which they occur in the Letter. The figures in brackets refer to the number of syllables in the line, and it will be observed that in many cases isocolon (or approximate isocolon) is present. For the most part the examples will speak for themselves. (a) § 1 w-kad hi kyanah naṭra (6) w-šuḥlapa la mqabbla (6) w-men kutmata raḥḥiqa (7) w-men ṣe’uta mbarya (6) luqbal kul gawnin meštaḥlpa l-mehwe (10) kad la meštaḥlpa (5) luqbal ḥewware ’akwathon hawya (10) w-luqbal ’ukkame ba-dmuthon šaḥma (10) w-luqbal summaqe ’akwathon summaqa (11) w-luqbal šappire ’akwathon šapra (10) w-luqbal sni’e ’akwathon mka’ra (9) {264} (b) § 1 w-kad šalya qa‘ya (3:2) w-kad mestabra d-mita makrza (6:2 (8)) w-kad šalya rapsa (3:2) w-kad layt lah karsa rwiḥ ‘ubbah (5:3 (8)) (c) § 2 tamman metḥzen darge rame d-ṭabe (10) (d) § 5

tamman metparšin darge rame d-meṣ'aye w-tamman ršimin darge taḥtaye d-biše ḥur b-‘ayna d-tar‘itak b-hay maḥzita d-men l‘el ’emret lak

(12) (11) (6:9)

Especially Demonstrations VI, XIV, XXIII.52ff. Cp my remarks in J.T.S. ns 19 (1968), p. 304 and note 2. 14 On Aphrahat, see L. HAEFELI, Stilmittel bei Afrahat (Leipzig, 1932). 12 13

166

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

w-ḥur b-tre‘sar kursawan dab-gawwah matqnin l-dina ḥur b-šarbata kad qayman b-zaw‘a wab-‘amme saggi’e kad qaymin ba-r‘ala hur b-qawmata kad naydan w-burke kad naqšan ḥur b-lebbayhon kad ṭarpin wab-re‘yanayhon kad metmsen etc (ḥur repeated ten times). (e) § 7 mḥallpana d-beryata mḥaddtana da-kyane mnaḥḥmana d-mituta qapel ‘arpella d-heška mbaṭṭel šultaneh d-'awla šare ’idah da-šyol tabar ‘uqsah d-bišta mappeq ḥbiše l-nuhra mqim ‘gine d-’ebdana qapoleh d-‘amṭana mšawwyana da-nyaḥa pataḥ pume da-skire napaḥ napša ’a(y)k d-men qdim (f) § 8 kad mqabbel ṭaybuta da-kpen (h)wa w-’awkluh(y) b-meskine wa-ṣhe (h)wa w-’ašqiwh(y) ba-mṭarrpe w-kad ‘arṭelya (h)wa w-’albšuh(y) ba šliḥe w-bet ’asire (h)wa w-’est‘ar ba-ḥbiše w-’aksnaya (h)wa w-kanšuh(y) b-nukraye wa-kriha (h)wa w-sa‘ruh(y) ba-mḥile (g) Sermo de Domino Nostro (ed. Beck) § 1 ṭaybuta qerbat l–pume mgaddpane w-’ebdat ’ennon kennare mšabbḥane meṭṭul hana netlun kul pumin šubḥa I-haw da-kla menhon memar guddapa (beside the approximate isocolon, note the chiastic pairing of the lines-1 with 2, and 3 with 4, by homoeoteleuton, and 1 with 4, 2 with 3, by content (gdp/šbḥ)). (h) Sermo de Domino Nostro § 2 hanaw d-’etiled men ’allahuta ’a(y)k kyaneh w-men (’)našuta d-la ba-kyaneh w-men ma‘mudita d-la ba-‘yadeh d-’enaḥnan netiled men (’)našuta ’a(y)k kyanan w-men ’allahuta d-la ba-kyanan w-men ruḥa d-la ba-‘yadan (i) Sermo de Domino Nostro § 2

(6:7) (4:5) (6:6) (4:3) (2:3) (4:3) (5:3) (6) (7) (6) (7) (3:5) (3:5) (5:5) (5:5) (4:5) (4:5) (10) (10) (11) (10)

(13) (8) (9) (13){265} (9) (7)

15. EPHREM’S LETTER TO PUBLIUS yaldeh leh ’abba w-beh bra beryata yaldeh leh besra w-beh qṭal rgigata ’iladteh ma‘mudita d-beh tḥawwar kutmata ’iladteh šyol d-beh nestarqan simatah b-'urḥa d-'ilide 'eta lwatan men sed ’abbuh(y) wab-’urḥa d-mayote npaq d-nezal lwat ’abbuh(y) dab-hay d-’eta b-yalda tetḥze metiteh wab-hay da-hpak b-nuḥḥama tešar mezalteh (j) Aphrahat Demonstration I (ed. WRIGHT, p. 22) haymanuta ger la-šmayya ’asqat w-mamola zkat w-‘aqruta ’awldat w-men ḥarba paṣṣyat w-men gubba ’asqat wal-meskine ’a‘trat wl-’asire šrat wla-rdipe šawzbat w-nura ’aḥtat w-yamma pelgat (k) Aphrahat Demonstration XIV (ed. WRIGHT, p. 288) huyu ger marganita ṭabta wa-ḥnan kad ’eškaḥnay(hy) ḥdayn beh waqnaynay(hy) w-huyu ger mabbu‘a d-ḥayye wa-ḥnan da-ṣhen (h)wayn ’eštayn menneh w-huyu patura da-mle duhana w-sab‘uta wa-ḥnan d-kapnin (h)wayn ’ekaln wa-bsamn

167 (5:5) (5:5) (7:6 (13)) (4:7 (11)) (13) (12) (11) (12) (5) (4) (5) (5) (5) (6) (4) (5) (4) (4)

(9) (11) (8) (9) (13) (9).

Many of these passages deserve a closer analysis, but that would be out of place here, and we may simply note the presence of a number of well-known rhetorical figures that are at once identifiable: anaphora abcdgi isocolon bcefj approximate isocolon adh homoeoteleuton abdcefghij asyndeton cei polysyndeton abfh

Throughout, too, we find the characteristically Semitic love of both parallelism of thought and of the paradoxical. In some of the examples (notably g h) there are elaborate chiastic structures; in nearly every case the clauses are carefully balanced grammatically. It is interesting to note that all these rhetorical figures are equally popular in contemporary Greek authors, such as the Cappadocian {266} Fathers, writing under the influence of the Second Sophistic. Their presence in Aphrahat as well as in

168

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

Ephrem shows, however, that we are dealing with a more or less independent phenomenon in Syriac literature, since neither of these writers seems otherwise to have been under the influence of Greek literature, and indeed it is unlikely that either had any real knowledge of the Greek language at all. It is tempting to suggest that this sort of style may originally have been disseminated into either language from centres that were culturally bilingual in Greek and Syriac.

BIBLICAL QUOTATIONS

The interest of two of the Gospel quotations in the Letter to Publius was already noticed by Burkitt, and in several further New Testament allusions certain further archaic features are to be found. (a) Old Testament The small number of Old Testament reminiscences are of little textual interest, apart from the fact that they show that the author is quoting from the Peshitta rather than from some other version. This is particularly clear in the fairly explicit quotations of Isa 40:12 in § 6, and Isa 38:12 in § 19, where the Peshitta text is reproduced word for word. In two cases it is possible that an otherwise totally unknown variant is implied: (1) § 6 end = Isa 40:15. The final words of the paragraph contain an allusion to Isa 40:15: in Isaiah it is the “nations” who are described as a mere “drop”, but in the Letter it is the “waters of the seas”. Could this imply a variant yamme for ‘amme of all the manuscripts in Isa 40:15? Since we are dealing with a mere passing allusion this must remain exceedingly doubtful. (2) § 7 = Isa 42:7. Christ is described as “bringing out captives (ḥbiše) into light”, reminiscent of Isa 42:7, “you shall bring prisoners (’asire) out of captivity (bet ḥbušya)”. It is interesting that in similar reminiscences of the same verse other Syriac writers also employ the word ḥbiše, 15 instead of ’asire of all the Peshitta manuscripts of Isa 42:7: Aphrahat, Dem. XIV (PS I,589): (Christ) ’appeq hbišeyh (sc. da-šyol); {267} Dem. XXIII (PS II, 105, 4–5): kad ḥbišin (h)wayn ’appeqtan; Jacob of Serugh, Ep. 16 (ed. OLINDER, p. 81–2): ’appeq l-nuhra ḥbiše(y)h. 16 (b) New Testament These are by far the most interesting, and the significant features are listed below, in the order in which they occur in the Gospels. As Burkitt suggested for the quotations of Luke 12 and 16, the Diatessaron should probably be seen as the source for many of the individual readings implied in the Letter. This perhaps suggests a liturgical origin. For “light” cf Targum to Isa 61:1. Cf also John Chrysostom Homily on the Crucifixion § 3 (O.C. 3 (1903), p. 108): haw daptaḥ tar‘e la-ḥbiše w-appeq’ ennon men hezze(y)h d-ar‘a. 15 16

15. EPHREM’S LETTER TO PUBLIUS

169

(1) §14 = Matt 7:14. “… narrow road which leads to the land of salvation …”. The Greek text of Matthew has στενὴ ἡ πύλη καὶ τεθλιμμένη ἡ ὁδὸς ἡ ἀπάγουσα εἰς τὴν ζωήν, which is faithfully rendered in OS and P; the reminiscence in § 14, however, makes the road narrow, 17 implying a NT text omitting ἡ πύλη, such as is found in certain Old Latin manuscripts as well as in some early Syriac quotations (see URBINA, nos. 581–6), including Ephrem, CD X, 16. 18 (2) § 16 = Matt 16:26. “… if a man gain the entire world but lose his soul, what profit has he … what can a man give in exchange for his soul ?” The text is very close to that of C and P, with two exceptions: “lose” in C and P is rendered by neḥsar, whereas the Letter has ’abida (lit. “is lost”); and “profit” appears in C and P as methanne (lit. “is advantaged”, 19 while the Letter has ne(’)tar, a verb also used in a quotation adduced in URBINA no 1309, and taken from the Lukan parallel, Luke 9:25 (C S, not P). (3) § 7 = Matt 19:28… Luke 22:30. “… judge of the tribes…”. Φυλαί the Greek Gospels is rendered by šabṭe in P in both passages (and C S in Luke), but by šarban in C S in Matthew, which is probably the reading known to Ephrem here; see further the commentary ad loc. (4) § 12 = Matt 25:10. “… bridal chamber (gnuna) …”. S has bet meštuta, while P has bet ḥlula; gnuna, however, (as here) was widely known in early Syriac literature 20 as the term for the {268} locale of the parable of the Virgins, and is found in explicit references in Lamy III, 139, 18 (LELOIR, no. 296; dubious authenticity) and Aphrahat Dem.VI (PS I, 240). (5) § 8 = Matt 25:33–4. The Letter implies a number of variants from the text of S (very damaged here) and P: (reading of Letter to right of bracket) v.33 “sheep” :‛erbe S P]’emre ’emre occurs in clear reminiscences of the verse in H. Eccl. VIII.4.2 and Serm. I.v.357. v.33 “prepared” : d-‘attida P (= Aphr. PS I,901)] m‛attda and mtayyba is recorded for a number of quotations of the passage; see LELOIR, nos 304, 307–8. v.34 “from the beginning of creation”: men tarmyateh d‘alma P] men qdim and men brešit (doublet again). men brešit is found in Aphrahat, loc. cit. (6) § 8 = Matt 25:35–6. Here again the Letter implies some variants from P and S (available only for v.36):

Cf also Manichaean Psalms (ed. ALLBERRY), p. 170, 29. Cf also Narsai (ed. MINGANA), II, p. 28. 19 The whole clause comes first in the biblical text, whereas, for stylistic reasons, it is placed second in the Letter. Note that at Luke 9:25 S has the doublet neḥsar w-nawbed. 20 In the NT it occurs at Matt 9:15 (CSP). 17 18

170

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD v.35 v.35 v.36

“you gave me to eat”: ya(h)btun li l-me(’)kal P (= Aphr. PS I, 901)] ’awklu(hy) The causative is attested in two quotations in LELOIR, nos 310–11. “thirsty”: ṣhit P] ṣhe (h)wa The auxiliary also occurs in Aphrahat, loc. cit. “covered me”: ksaytunan(y) P] w-’albšu(hy) So S (w-’albeštunan(y)), as well as early quotations (including Aphrahat); see LELOIR no 310 with note 79.

The order of the items is unusual in the Letter, for whereas in the Gospels we have (no variation): stranger: naked: sick: prison the Letter provides: naked: prison: stranger: sick (i.e. 2 4 1 3) This is partially paralleled in some early quotations: LELOIR no 310 has the order 3 2 4 LELOIR no 311 has the order 2 3 1 4 Aphrahat (loc. cit) has 2 1 3 4 One final variant seems to be implied in v.36: in S and P they “come” to him in prison, but in the Letter they “visit” him. (7) § 16 = Luke 12:19. The passage is well set out in Burkitt (p. 72) and Leloir (no 529), and need not be presented again here. The quotation is remarkable {269} for various agreements with Aphrahat (PS I, 904) against both S C and P. (8) § 13 = Luke 13:25–6. “… crying at the gate … “we have eaten and drunk in your presence” …”. The section is based at first on Matt 25:10, but the mention of the “gate” provides the transition from Matt 25:10–12 to Luke 13:25–6. In the explicit quotation of v.26 the Letter uses the verb ’ekal in common with P, but against S C (l‘es). Against S C and P the Letter places “before you” after the verb. (9) § 4 (§ 14) = Luke 16:9, 24–6. The passage is set out in BURKITT (p. 71) and LELOIR (no. 559), but with two misreadings of the manuscript in the first line: Burkitt ṭbt’ ] ms ṭb̈tk wllwtk ] ms wg’ẅtk. In two respects the Letter agrees with P against S: v.19 “luxuriously” ga’ya’it P (om S)] b-ge’wateh v.24 “wet” nraṭṭeb P = Letter (S nqawrar) The same verb is found in two Ephrem quotations, LELOIR nos. 555–6, and Aphrahat (PS I, 908, 912). In three other places, however, the Letter goes against both S and P: v.24 “I am tormented”: meštannaq (’)na S P] ’aliṣ (’)na So also Aphrahat, loc. cit. v.25 παρακαλεῖται: mettniḥ S P] ba‘e’a(n)t menneh “you re-

15. EPHREM’S LETTER TO PUBLIUS

v.26

171

quest him” The Letter rests on a rendering of the ambiguous παρακαλεῖται by “is requested” (rather than “is comforted”). As Burkitt pointed out, such a rendering was also known to Aphrahat, and probably goes back to the Diatessaron. Compare the similar treatment of παράκλησις in Luke 2:25 and 6:24, where S in both cases unexpectedly renders by “request”, not “comfort” (in VI, 24 S is supported by Aphrahat). “chasm”: hawta S P] peḥta (also §§ 14 and 21). peḥta is the term always used by Ephrem, cp C. Nis. X.8.1; LV.5.2; LVI.13.1; H. Parad. I.12; H. Fid. LXIII.12.4; LXIX.11.2; H. Eccl. XXXIII.6; Lamy IV, 381; also Aphrahat (PS I, 908, 912), Isaac of Antioch (ed. BEDJAN) p. 117, Jacob of Serugh (ed. BEDJAN) I, p. 370, 7 etc (but Jacob more often uses hawta, as does Narsai in his homily on the parable).

(10) § 13 = John 6:26. “… It was not me you were wanting, but simply because you ate bread and had your fill”. The Letter adapts John 6:26, although the second half is identical with S C and very close to P (which omits meṭṭul of OS); in the first {270} half, however, S has an imperfect, C a perfect, and P a participle: in the Letter the first hand of our manuscript has left out the verb altogether, while the second one has inserted b‘ytwn, a form that could either be taken as a perfect (= C) or a participle (= P), (11) § 16 = Heb. 10:31. This is the only explicit quotation from the Epistles, and it agrees exactly with the Peshitta.

CONCLUSION

Ephrem’s Letter to Publius stands out as a remarkable product of early Syriac spirituality. The themes he touches on are recurrent in spiritual writers of all ages in both eastern and western Christian tradition: specific parallels from Ephrem’s own Syriac tradition have been given in the commentary, but it would not be hard to adduce others, of a more general nature, from writers belonging to a very different age and milieu. Thus, to take only the most obvious example, the image of the mirror is one that has held a constant fascination for the mind of religious man: it is just as much at home in Sufi mysticism as it is in that of Eckhart. 21 Nor is this merely an image of

E.g. H. LEISEGANG, La connaissance de Dieu au miroir de l’âme et de la nature. in R.H.P.R. 17 (1937). pp. 145–71. 21

172

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

the past; C-M Edsman, for example, quotes a modern Swedish authoress as follows: 22 I had the impression of being … an empty mirror ready to reflect the pictures of experience. My awareness became more and more refined. Then I looked into myself, at my mental world with all its conceptions. Then I looked outwards towards the world and the outer universe, society and the cosmos. Then I directed the mirror downwards towards the ground and considered the undergrowth and the world of the insect. Then the mirror was turned upwards towards the heavens, the flying clouds and the flight of birds, towards the stars of the night sky, darkness, cold. Infinity in size, distance and time.

Or, again, the exhortation to let the mind descend to the depths of Sheol (§19) finds its echo in the experience of a modern hermit of Mount Athos, Father Silouan, who was told: “Keep thy mind in hell, and despair not”. 23 But perhaps most striking of all is Ephrem’s insistence that the traditional language about judgement is purely metaphorical, and that it is man’s own conscience that acts as the judge in Christ’s presence. This sort of psychological approach one {271} would expect to find perhaps in a nineteenth or twentieth century writer, but it comes as a surprise in one who died sixteen centuries ago.

TEXT AND TRANSLATION

The somewhat unusual hand of Add. 7190 makes the text a little difficult to read at first, and even the eminent palaeographer F. C. Burkitt was misled in the reading of two ligatures in the course of a six line extract which he gave in his S. Ephraim’s Quotations from the Gospel. 24 There still remain a few uncertainties in my transcription of the text, and wherever the hand is ambiguous and the correct reading cannot be deduced for certain from the context I have indicated the uncertainty of the reading in the apparatus. The apparatus also includes the reading of the manuscript in all those places where the text (which has evidently been somewhat carelessly copied) has required correction. There remain a number of short passages where the manuscript is damaged, and for these fills have been supplied only where they seem reasonably certain. The translation aims at keeping fairly close to the original, but too literal a rendering would have proved unsatisfactory. In a few passages the meaning remains rather obscure to me, and attention to these is drawn in the notes. A further difficulty has been occasioned by the occurrence of a number of otherwise unattested

Mysticism, historical and contemporary; an introduction in Mysticism (ed. S. S. HARTMAN and C.-M. EDSMAN), Scripta Instituti Donneriani Aboensis 5, 1970, p. 31. 23 Archimandrite SOFRONY, The Undistorted Image (London, 1958), p. 33, 200. 24 See above, p. 269. 22

15. EPHREM’S LETTER TO PUBLIUS

173

words, 25 whose meaning has simply been guessed from the context. The more explicit biblical quotations are italicized.

SUMMARY

1 Description of the mirror of the Gospel; how it is affected when things are held up to it. 2 At a deeper level it also reflects the Kingdom 3 and Gehenna. 4 The parable of Dives and Lazarus. 5 Invitation to look at the mirror and its picture of the day of judgement; it depicts both those about to be judged and 6 Christ the judge, whose attributes are listed in hymnic terms (6–8). 8 Christ separates out the sheep from the goats; 9 he himself sits impassive and it is the deeds of each man which speak out for or against their “masters”. The traditional language of the judgement scene is in fact just metaphorical. 10 Further exhortation to look into the mirror with a discerning mind. {272–94} 11 Ephrem describes his own experience, with his spiritual awakening. 12–13 His understanding of the Parable of the Virgins and its meaning. 14–15 His trepidation at the discovery of the real meaning of virginity; 16 his resolve to take heed of the warning. 17–18 Invitation to meditate on the fate of past generations and 19 to descend in the mind to the depths of Sheol, and there 19–20 ponder on the dire ends of departed kings and princes. 21 The contrast with Paradise, the vision of which merely aggravates the torments of those in hell. 22–3 Ephrem speculates on the true meaning of Gehenna in psychological terms, dropping the traditional imagery. 24 The effect of this vision of hell on him, and his resolve to repent. 25 Summing up and conclusion.

‫ܕܩܕܝܫܐ ܡܪܝ ܐܦܪܝܡ ܡܢ ܐܓܪܬܐ ܕܠܘܬ ܦܘܦܠܝܘܣ‬

(188a)

̇ ‫ ܫܦܝܪ ܕܝܢ‬1 ‫ ܕܡܚܙܝܬܐ ܡܪܝܩܬܐ ܕܣܒܪܬܗ ܩܕܝܫܬܐ ܕܡܪܟ ܡܢ‬.‫ܥܒܕ ܐܢܬ‬ ̇ ̇ ̈ ̇ ̇ ‫ܘܗܝ ܡܕܡܝܐ ܠܟܠ ܡܢ‬ ̣ .‫ ܗܝ ܕܗܝ ܡܡܪܝܐ ܠܟܠ ܕܚܐܪ ܒܗ‬.�‫ܐܝܕܝܟ � ܢܦ‬ ̇ ̇ ‫ܕܡܬܒܩܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܟܘܬܡܬܐ‬ ‫ܟܝܢܗ ܢܛܪܐ܆ ܘܫܘܚܠܦܐ � ̇ܡܩܒ�܇ ܘܡܢ‬ ‫ ܘܟܕ ܗܝ‬.‫ܒܗ‬ ̈ ‫ܪܚܝܩܐ܆ ܘܡܢ ܨܐܘܬܐ ̇ܡܒܪܝܐ܆ ܠܘܩܒܠ ܟܠ ܓܘܢܝܢ ܡܫܬܚܠܦܐ ܠܡܗܘܐ܆ ܟܕ‬ ̇ ̈ ‫ܐܘܟܡܐ‬ ‫ ܘܠܘܩܒܠ‬.‫ܗܘܝܐ‬ ‫� ܡܫܬܚܠܦܐ܆ ܠܘܩܒܠ ܚܘ̈ܪܐ ܐܟܘܬܗܘܢ‬ ̈ ‫ ܘܠܘܩܒܠ‬.‫ܒܕܡܘܬܗܘܢ ̇ܫܚܡܐ‬ ‫ ܘܠܘܩܒܠ‬.‫ܣܘܡܩܐ ܐܟܘܬܗܘܢ ܣܘܡܩܐ‬ .‫ ܘܠܘܩܒܠ ̈ܣܢܝܐܐ ܐܟܘܬܗܘܢ ܡܟܐܪܐ‬.‫ܫܦܝ�ܐ ܐܟܘܬܗܘܢ ̇ܫܦܪܐ‬ ̇ ̈ ̇ ‫ܒܓܘܗ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܘܠܣܢܝܐ>ܐ< ̇ܡܟܣܐ‬ .‫ܨܝܪܐ‬ ‫ܗܕܡܐ܆‬ ‫ܘܠܟܠܗܘܢ‬ ‫܆‬26 ‫ܒܡܘܡܝܗܘܢ‬ ̇ ̈ 27 ‫ ܘܠܫܦܝ�ܐ ܡܟܪܙܐ‬.‫ܕܢܐܣܘܢ ܢܦܫܗܘܢ ܇ ܘܢܥܒܪܘܢ ܫܘܚ�ܐ ܡܢ ܐܦܝܗܘܢ‬ See commentary to §§ 5, 6, 11. ms om. sey. 27 ‫ ܫ‬supral. 25 26

‫‪174‬‬

‫‪SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD‬‬

‫ܕܢܙܕܗܪܘܢ ܒܫܘܦܪܗܘܢ܇ ܕ� ܢܬܟܬܡ ܒܨܐܘܬܐ‪ .‬ܘܢܘܣܦܘܢ ܐܦ ܼܗܢܘܢ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܒܨܒܬܐ ܕܨܒܝܢܗܘܢ ‪ 28‬ܥܠ ܟܝܢܐ ܕܒܪܝܬܗܘܢ‪ .‬ܘܟܕ ܫܬܝܩܐ ܡܡܠ�‪ .‬ܘܟܕ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܩܥܝܐ܆ ܘܟܕ ܡܣܬܒܪܐ ܕܡܝܬܐ ܡܟܪܙܐ‪ .‬ܘܟܕ ܫܠܝܐ ܪܦܣܐ‪ .‬ܘܟܕ ܠܝܬ ̇‬ ‫ܫܠܝܐ ̇‬ ‫ܠܗ‬ ‫ܼ ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܬܘܘܢܐ ̈‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܕܒܓܘܗ܇ ܟܠܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܟܣܝܐ‬ ‫ܥܘܒܗ‪ :‬ܘܬܡܢ ܒܗ>ܢـܐ< ܕܡܬܒܣܝܢ ̇‬ ‫ܒܗ‪ .‬ܘܐܝܟܢܐ ܡܚܙܝܬܐ ܗܕܐ‬ ‫ܕܟܝܢܐ܆ ܛܠܢܝܬܐ ܗܝ ܕܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ‪ .‬ܗܟܢܐ ܘܐܦ ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ܛܠܢܝܬܐ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܚܡܐ )‪̇ (188b‬‬ ‫ܗܘ܇ܕܗܘ ܫܘܦܪܐ ܥܠܝܐ‪ .‬ܕ� ̇‬ ‫ܗܘ ܕܒܗ ܡܬܟܣܣܝܢ ܟܠܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܚܛܗ ̇‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܝܗ ܕܒܪܝܬܐ‪ .‬ܕܒܗ ‪ 34‬ܡܬܝܗܒ ܦܘܪܥܢܐ܆ ܠܟܠ ܕܢܛܪܘ ܫܘܦ�ܝܗܘܢ܇ ܕ�‬ ‫ܕܡܬܒܩܐ ܓܝܪ‪ :‬ܒܗܕܐ ܡܚܙܝܬܐ‪̇ .‬‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܒܗ ܡܬܚܙܝܢ‬ ‫ܢܬܦܠܦܠܘܢ ܒܣܝܢܐ‪ .‬ܟܠ ̇ܡܢ‬ ‫ܕܡܬܒܝܢ ̇‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܒܗ܆ ܬܡܢ ̇ܚܙܐ ̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܠܡܢܬܐ ܕܢܛܝܪܐ ܠܗ‪ .‬ܐܘ ܕܛܒܐ‬ ‫ܚܛܗܘܗܝ‪ .‬ܘܟܠ ̇ܡܢ‬ ‫ܐܘ ܕܒ ̣ܝܫܐ‪ .‬ܬܡܢ ܨܝܪܐ ܡܠܟܘܬܐ ܕܫܡܝܐ܆ ܘܡܬܚܙܝܐ �ܝܠܝܢ ܕܐܝܬ ܠܗܘܢ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕܛܒܐ‪ .‬ܬܡܢ ܡܬܦܪܫـ)ـܝܢ( ܕ̈ܪܓܐ‬ ‫ܫܦܝܬܐ‪ .‬ܬܡܢ ܡܬܚܙܝܢ‪ :‬ܕ̈ܪܓܐ ̈ܪܡܐ‬ ‫ܥܝܢܐ‬ ‫̣‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈ܪܡܐ ܕܡܨܥܝܐ܆ ܘܬܡܢ ܪܫ ̣ܝܡܝܢ‪ :‬ܕ̈ܪܓܐ ܬܚܬܝܐ ܕܒܝܫܐ‪ .‬ܬܡܢ ܝܕܝܥܝܢ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܐܬ̈ܪܘܬܐ ܫܦܝ�ܐ܆ ̇‬ ‫ܕܫܘܝܢ ܠܗܘܢ‪ .‬ܬܡܢ ܡܬܚܙܐ‬ ‫ܕܡܛܝܒـ>ـܝـܠــܕܢـܐܪܐ< ܗܪܟܐ܆ ܗܟܢ ܥܬܝܕܐ ܕܐܦ ܬܡܢ܇ ܬܚܘܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܣܢܝܐ>ܐ< ܆ ܘܐܝܟܢܐ ܕܦܪܫܐ ܠܡܫܒܚܘ ܠܛܒܐ ܗܪܟܐ ܗܟـ>ܢـ ܝـ ـܘـܝ< ܘܐܬܒܣܡܝ‪ :‬ܡܛܠ ܕܗܐ ܥܠܠܬܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܣܓܝܐܬܐ ̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܣܓܝܐܬܐ܆ � ܫܡܥܬ ܕܥܕ ܡܠܬܗ ܒܦܘܡܗ‬ ‫ܠܫܢܝܐ‬ ‫ܚܡܝܠܢ ܠܟܝ‬ ‫ܚܠܝܐ ܗܘܬ܆ ܒܪܬ ܩ� ܡܪܝܪܬܐ܆ ܒܥܘܒܐ ܕܐܕܢܗ ܐܬܢܣܟܬ ‪ 76‬ܗܘܬ‪ .‬ܕܟܕ ܕ�‬ ‫ܪܚܝܡܬܐ ܡܢܟ ̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܬܒܥܝܢ‬ ‫ܘܐܡܪܐ‪ .‬ܗܐ ܒܗܢܐ ܠܠܝܐ ܢܦܫܟ‬ ‫ܠܒܐ ܠܗ ̇ܩܪܝܐ ܗܘܬ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܠܗ‪ .‬ܗܢܐ ܡܕܡ ܕܛܝܒܬ ̇‬ ‫ܠܡܢ ܢܗܘܐ܀܀‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܐܬܚܫܒ‪ :‬ܐܝܟܐ ܐܢܘܢ ܟܠܗܘܢ ܒܢܝ ܐܕܡ܆ ‪ 17 77‬ܬܘܗ ܡܢ ܗܢܐ ܛܒܥܟ‬ ‫ܕܐܝܟ ܙܚ� ܡܢ ܝܘܡܐ ܩܕܡܝܐ܆ ܥܠ ܬܒܝܠ ̇‬ ‫ܪܦܬܝܢ ܗܘܘ‪ .‬ܐܬܬܥܝܪ ܡܢ ܢܘܡܬܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܗܕܡܝܟ ̇ܦܪܝܣܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܗܕܐ ܕܗܝ ܡܪܦܝܐ ܠܟ܆ ܘܐܝܟ ܛܠܠܗ ܕܡܘܬܐ ܥܠ ܟܠܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܬܐ ܐܘܒܠܟ ܠܘܬ ܕ̈ܪܐ ̈‬ ‫ܩܕܡܝܐ܇ ̇ܗܢܘܢ ܕܫܡܝܥ ܗܘܐ ܠܟ ܥܠܝܗܘܢ‪.‬‬ ‫ܘܩܘܡ ܼ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܐܝܟܘ ܐܕܡ ܘܐܝܟܐ ܐܒܗܝܟ‪ .‬ܗܢܘܢ ܕܐܝܟ ܐܡ�ܐ ܠܥܒܐ‪ :‬ܒܥܘܒܗ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܡܬܓܐܝܢ ܗܘܘ‪ :‬ܘܥܡ ܐܠܗܐ ܐܝܟ‬ ‫ܚܒ�ܐ ܡܡܠܠܝܢ ܗܘܘ ‪ 78‬ܕܦܪܕܝܣܐ ܕܥܕܝܢ‬ ‫ܠܗܠܝܢ ‪corrected by scribe from‬‬ ‫ܗܘܢ ‪ms‬‬‫ܢ ‪75 ms‬‬ ‫ܗܘ‬‫)ܐܬܢܣܒܬ ‪76 Sic ms (Leloir, p. 84:‬‬ ‫ܛܘܒܥܟ ‪77 ms‬‬ ‫)‪ (from below‬ܒܪܝܬܐ ‪78 ms +‬‬ ‫‪73‬‬ ‫‪74‬‬

‫‪181‬‬

‫‪15. EPHREM’S LETTER TO PUBLIUS‬‬

‫̇‬ ‫ܘܠܟܠܗ ܒܪܝܬܐ ܕܪܥܗܘܢ ܡܫܥܒܕ ܗܘܐ‪ .‬ܒܫܘܠܛܢܐ‪ .‬ܥܠ ܝܡܐ ܘܥܠ‬ ‫ܕܚ�‬ ‫ܕ�‬ ‫̣‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܝܒܫܐ ܐܝܕܗܘܢ ܫܠܝܛܐ ܗܘܬ‪ .‬ܘܥܠ ܬܢܝܢܐ ܕܚܝܠـ]ܐ[ ̈ܪܓܠܝܗܘܢ ܕܝܫܢ ܗܘܝ‪.‬‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܗܘܝ‪ .‬ܠܫܡܝܐ‬ ‫ܘܚܝܘܬܐ ܡܪܝ�ܬܐ ܕܝܘܡܢܐ܆ ̈ܪܝܫܝܗܝܢ ܩܕܡܝܗܘܢ ܡ�ܟܢܢ‬ ‫ܕܬܗܘܡܐ ܐܝܟ ܝܒܫܐ ̇‬ ‫ܡܝܫܝܢ ܗܘܘ‪.‬‬ ‫ܬܪܥܝܬܗܘܢ ܡܛܝܐ ܗܘܬ ܘܐܫܬܗ‬ ‫̣‬ ‫ܐܝܟܐ ܐܢܘܢ ܥܣ�ܐ ܕ]̈ܪܐ[ ܕܡܢ ܐܕܡ ܘܥܕܡܐ ܠܢܘܚ‪ � .‬ܗܐ‬ ‫‪18‬‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܐܬܬܫܝܓܘ ܒܛܘܦܢܐ ܕܡܝܐ‪ .‬ܐܝܟܐ ܐܢܘܢ ܕ̈ܪܐ ܕܣܕܘܡܝܐ‪ � .‬ܘܐܦ ̣ܗܢܘܢ‬ ‫ܐܬܬܫܝܓܘ ܒܛܘܦܢܐ ܕܢܘܪܐ܆ ܐܝܟـ]ܐ[ ܐܢܘܢ ܕ̈ܪܐ ܕܡܢ ܗܝܕܝܢ ܘܥܕܡܐ‬ ‫ܠܝܘܡܢܐ܆ ܐܝܟܐ ܐܢܘܢ܇ ܗܠܝܢ ܕܐܦ� ̈‬ ‫ܫܢܝܢ ܒܨܝܪ ܩܠܝܠ܆ ܒܗܘ ܙܒܢܐ ̇‬ ‫ܚܐܝܢ‬ ‫ܗܘܘ‪ � .‬ܗܐ ܓܪܣܘ ܐܘܦܝܘ )‪ (192a‬ܘܐܠܘ � ܕܝܘܬܐ ܕܥܠ ̈‬ ‫ܡܫܟܐ ܕܐܡ�ܐ‬ ‫ܡܬܪܫܡܐ܆ ܡܥܗܕܐ ܗܘܬ ܠܢ ̈‬ ‫ܫܡܗܝܗܘܢ܆ ܐܦ� ܕܐܝܬܝܗܘܢ ܗܘܘ‪ :‬ܝܕܥܝܢ‬ ‫ܗܘܝܢ܀‬ ‫̈‬ ‫‪ 19‬ܬܐ ܐܦܩܟ ܠܒܝܬ ܩܒܘ̈ܪܐ ‪ 79‬ܚܫܘܟܐ܆ܘܚܘܬ ܥܡܝ ܒܪܥܝܢܟ‪ .‬ܘܐܦ ܠܫܝܘܠ‬ ‫ܐܦܝܗܘܢ‪̈ .‬‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܬܓܝܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܬܚܬܝܬܐ‪ .‬ܘܐܚܘܝܟ ܬܡܢ ̈ܡܠܟܐ‪ .‬ܟܕ ܣܚܝܦܝܢ ܥܠ‬ ‫ܥܡܗܘܢ ܕܛܡܝܪܝܢ ܒܥܦܪܐ‪ .‬ܬܐ ܚܙܝ ܪܘ̈ܪܒܢܐ‪̇ :‬‬ ‫ܗܢܘܢ ܕܥܠ ܫܐ̈ܪܝܐ ܡܬܓܐܝܢ‬ ‫ܗܘܘ܆ ܐܝܟܐ ܥܒܝܕܐ ܪܡܬܐ ܬܫܘܝܬܗܘܢ‪ .‬ܘܬܘܠܥܐ ܬܟܣܝܬܗܘܢ‪ .‬ܬܐ ܚܙܝ‬ ‫ܕܚܝܠܘܬܐ ̇‬ ‫ܚܝ�‪̇ :‬ܗܢܘܢ ܕܠ�ܒܘܬܐ ̈‬ ‫̈ܪܒܝ ̈‬ ‫ܦܩܕܝܢ ܗܘܘ܆ ܐܝܟܢܐ ܥܒܝܕܝܢ ̈ܡܐܢܐ‬ ‫̈ܒܛ� ܕܥܦܪܐ‪ :‬ܘܨܒܘܬܐ ܕ� ܪܓܫܬܐ‪ .‬ܚܘܪ ܫܦܝܪ ܒܥܦܪܐ ܕܐܪܥܐ܆‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܘܐܬܒܩܐ ܒܗ ܕܐܚܝܢܟ ܗܘ‪ .‬ܥܕܡܐ �ܡܬܝ ̇‬ ‫ܘܣܒܪ ܐܢܬ‬ ‫ܛܥܐ ܐܢܬ ܒܢܦܫܟ܇‬ ‫ܝܘܡܐ ̇ܡܝܒܫ‬ ‫ܕܡܝܬܪ ܐܢܬ‪ :‬ܡܢ ܥܡܝܪܐ ܕܐܓܪܐ‪ .‬ܠܥܡܝܪܐ ܓܝܪ ܫܘܒܐ ܕܚܕ‬ ‫̣‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܕܐܫܬܐ ܕܚܕ ܝܘܡܐ ܡܚܡܐ ܠܗ‪ .‬ܐܝܟܐ‬ ‫ܠܗ‪ .‬ܘܠܦܓܪܐ ܪܓܝܓܐ‪ .‬ܗܘܦܐ‬ ‫ܐܢܘܢ ̈ܡܠܟܐ ܘܠ ̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܒܘܫܝܗܘܢ‪ .‬ܬܓܝܗܘܢ ܘܐ̈ܪܓܘܢܝܗܘܢ‪ .‬ܐܝܟܐ ܐܢܘܢ܇‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܟܢܘܫܬܗܘܢ‪̈ .‬‬ ‫ܫܘܠܛܢܝܗܘܢ ܘܩ�ܒܝܗܘܢ܇ ̈‬ ‫ܣܝܡܬܗܘܢ ܥܡ‬ ‫ܚܝܠܘܬܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܒܢܝܙܟܝܗܘܢ ܟܕ ̇ܡܬܒܪܝܢ‪̈ .‬‬ ‫ܩܫܬܬܗܘܢ‪ .‬ܟܕ ̈ܫܕܝܢ‪̈ .‬‬ ‫ܓܙܝܗܘܢ‪ .‬ܚܘܪ ̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܣܝܦܝܗܘܢ ܟܕ‬ ‫ܡܫܚܬܝܢ‪̈ .‬ܙܝܢܝܗܘܢ‪ .‬ܟܕ ܒܩܝܩܝܢ‪ .‬ܕ̈ܪܝܗܘܢ ܕܐܫܩܠܘ ܘܥܒܪܘ‪ .‬ܐܝܟ ¬ܡܫܟܢܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܚܝܝܗܘܢ ܒܡܘܬܐ‪ .‬ܘܐܝܟ ܢܘ� ܕܩܪܝܒ‬ ‫ܕ̈ܪܡܬܐ ܐܬܩܦܕ ‪ 80‬ܣܝ�ܣ‬ ‫ܠܡܬܬܓܕܕܘ܇ ܒܛܘܠܩܐ ܡܢ ܥܩ�ܝܗܘܢ ܐܬܓܝܕܘ‪.‬‬ ‫ܚܘܪ ܕܐܬܗܦܟܘ ܙܡ�ܝܗܘܢ �ܒ�‪ .‬ܘܟܢ�ܝܗܘܢ ܠܩ� ܕܒܟܬܐ‪.‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܓܘܚܟܗܘܢ �ܒ� ܐܣܬܚܦ ܗܘܐ‪ .‬ܘܩܝܢܬܗܘܢ ܚܠܝܬܐ܆ ܠܢܥܡܬܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܚܢܝܓܬܐ‪ .‬ܠܒܘܫܐ ܕܓܘܓܝ܇ ܐܙܕܩܪ ܠܗܘܢ ܬܡܢ‪ .‬ܘܬܫܘܝܬܐ ܕܪܡܬܐ‬ ‫ܬܚܘܬܝܗܘܢ ܡܟܝܟܐ ܗܘܬ‪ .‬ܘܬܟܣܝܬܐ ܕܬܘܠܥܐ‪ .‬ܥܠܝܗܘܢ ܐܝܟ ܢܚܬܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܣܚܝܦܐ ܩܕܡܝܗܘܢ ܣ ̣ܝܡܝܢ ܗܘܘ‪ .‬ܫܕܬܐ ܡܪܝܩܬܐ‬ ‫ܦܪܝܣܐ ܗܘܬ‪ .‬ܦܬܘܪܐ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܕܓܐܝܘܬܗܘܢ ̇ܟܦܝܐ ܗܘܬ‪ .‬ܘܟܕ ܫܕܝܐ ܬܫܡܫܬܗܘܢ‪ :‬ܘܕ� ܚܫܚܘ ܥܒ ܼܝܕܐ‬ ‫‪ sublin.‬ܘ‬

‫)‪in margin (first hand‬‬

‫‪79‬‬ ‫‪80‬‬

‫‪182‬‬

‫‪SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD‬‬

‫ܗܘܬ‪ .‬ܐܝܩܪܗܘܢ ܥܠ ܥܦܪܐ ܡܬܓܪܓܚ ܗܘܐ ‪ 81‬ܘܐܦ ܓܐܝܘܬܗܘܢ ܬܡܢ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܚܛܝܦܐ ̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܓܢܘܢܝܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܫܒܝܩܬܐ ܕܡܢ‬ ‫ܘܟܠܠܬܐ‬ ‫ܒܩܛܡܐ ܛܡܝܪܐ ܗܘܬ‪̈ .‬ܚܬܢܐ‬ ‫ܐܬܥܓܢܝ ‪̈ 82‬‬ ‫ܗܘܝ‪ .‬ܟܕ ܒ ̈‬ ‫ܪܝܫܝܗܘܢ ̈ܟܠܝܠܝܗܘܢ ‪ 83‬ܚܡܝܢ ܗܘܘ‪ (192b) .‬ܘܒܥܦܪܐ ܥܠ‬ ‫ܐܪܥܐ ܥܡܗܘܢ ܡܠܝܚܝܢ ܗܘܘ‪ .‬ܐܣܛ� ܕܚܫܘܟܐ ܥܠܝܗܘܢ ܦܪܝܣܐ ܗܘܬ܆‬ ‫ܕܘܝܐ ܡܢ ܟܠ ̈‬ ‫ܦܘܡܝܢ ܬܡܢ ̇‬ ‫ܕܙܩܪܬ ܠܗܘܢ ܫܝܘܠ ܒܢܘ� ܥܡܘܛܐ܆ ܩ� ̇‬ ‫ܫܡܥ‬ ‫ܗܘܝܬ‪ .‬ܡܛܠ ܕܐܢܫ ܕܢܒܝܐܐ ܠܚܒܪܗ ܬܡܢ � ܡܫܟܚܝܢ ܗܘܘ‪.‬‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕܥܝܢܝܗܘܢ܆ ܠܗܘܢ ܡܚܫܐ ܗܘܬ܆ ܗܝ ܕܒܡܬܚܗ ܠܬܚܘܡܗ‬ ‫ܚܙܬܐ‬ ‫‪21‬‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܕܦܚܬܐ܆ ܒܩܠܝܠܘܬܗ ܥܒܪܐ ܗܘܬ‪ .‬ܘܥܠ ܓܢܬܐ ܕܥܕܝܢ ܛܝܣܐ ܗܘܬ܆ ܘܥܠ‬ ‫ܦܪܕܝܣܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܡܪܚܦܐ ܗܘܬ‪ .‬ܘܠܣܡܟܐ ܒܪܝܟܐ ̇ܚܙܝܐ ܗܘܬ‪ :‬ܘܠܦܬܘ̈ܪܝ‬ ‫ܩܝܢܬܐ ̈‬ ‫ܡܠܟܘܬܐ ܡܬܝܐܝܒܐ ܗܘܬ܆ ܘܩܠ ̈‬ ‫ܕܟܝܬܐ ̇ܫܡܥܐ ܗܘܬ܆ ܕܒܙܡ�ܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܩܕܝܫܐ ̈ܚܠܝܛܢ ̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܒܬܫܒܘܚܬܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ ܦܬܝܟܢ ܗܘܝ‪ :‬ܘܠܪܘܡܐ ܒܡܬܚܗܝܢ‬ ‫ܗܘܝ‪:‬‬ ‫ܦܬܚܢ ̈‬ ‫ܓܕܠܢ ̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܗܘܝ‪ .‬ܘܩܕܡ ܡܪܗܝܢ ܒܚܕܘܬܐ ܡ�ܚܦܢ‬ ‫ܗܘܝ‪ .‬ܘܬ̈ܪܥܐ ܕܡܠܟܘܬܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܗܘܝ‪ .‬ܘܩ� ܗܘ ܒܠܚܘܕ ܕܦܘܡܘܢ ܚܕ ܠܘܬ ܚܕ ܡܫܕܪܢ ‪ 84‬ܗܘܝ‪ .‬ܘܫܠܝܛܐ ܬܡܢ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܐܦ ܚܙܬܐ ̈‬ ‫ܘܠܓܒܐ ܬ̈ܪܝܗܘܢ‪.‬‬ ‫ܕܥܝܢܐ‪ :‬ܕܬܐܙܠ ܘܬܐܬܐ܆‬ ‫‪ 22‬ܘܟܒܪ ܗܝ ܗܝ ܚܙܬܗܘܢ܇ ܓܗܢܗܘܢ ̈‬ ‫ܕܒܝܫܐ‪ .‬ܘܦܘܪܫܢܗܘܢ ܡܘܩܕܢܗܘܢ‪.‬‬ ‫ܘܬܪܥܝܬܗܘܢ ܫܠܗܒܝܬܗܘܢ‪ .‬ܘܐܡܪ ̇‬ ‫ܗܘ ‪̇ 85‬ܕܝܢܐ ܟܣܝܐ‪̇ :‬ܕܝܬܒ ܒܪܥܝܢܐ‬ ‫ܼ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܦܪܘܫܐ‪ .‬ܘܥܒܝܕ ܠܗܘܢ ܬܡܢ ̇ܕܝܢܐ ܕܟܐܢܘܬܐ‪ .‬ܘܡܢܓܕ ܠܗܘܢ ܕ� ܪܚܡܝܢ‪:‬‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܬܫܢܝܕܐ ܕܬܘܬ ܢܦܫܐ‪ .‬ܘܟܒܪ ܗܘܝܘ ܥܒܝܕ ܡܦܪܫܢܐ ܒܝܢܬܗܘܢ܆ ܘܡܫܕܪ ܠܚܕ ܚܕ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܡܢܗܘܢ �ܬܪܐ ̇‬ ‫ܠܛܒܐ܆‬ ‫ܕܥܗܢ ܠܗ‪ .‬ܘܟܒܪ ܗܘܝܘ ܠܒܝܟ ܒܝܡܝܢܗ ܬܪܝܨܬܐ‬ ‫ܗܝ ܝܡܝܢܐ ܕ̈ܪܚܡܐ ܡܫܕܪ ܠܗܘܢ܆ ܘܗܘ ܬܘܒ ܐܚܝܕ ̈‬ ‫ܘܠܘܬ ̇‬ ‫ܠܒܝܫܐ ܒܣܡܠܗ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܫܘܝܬܐ ܘ�ܬܪܐ ܕܡܬܩܪܐ ܣܡ� ܫܪܐ ܠܗܘܢ‪ .‬ܘܟܒܪ ܗܘܝܘ ܕܡܩܛܪܓ‬ ‫ܠܗܘܢ ܟܕ ܫ�‪̇ .‬‬ ‫ܘܝܗܒ ܥܠܝܗܘܢ ܓܙܪ ܕܝܢܐ ܟܕ ܫܬܝܩ‪.‬‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܓܘܝܐ‪ .‬ܕܥܒܝܕ ܕܝܢܐ ܘܢܡܘܣܐ܆ ܕܓܘܫܡܐ‬ ‫ܘܣܒܪ ܐܢܐ ܥܠ ܗܢܐ ܪܥܝܢܐ‬ ‫‪23‬‬ ‫̣‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܗܘ ܕܛܠܢܝܬܗ ܕܢܡܘܣܐ‪ .‬ܘܛܠܢܝܬܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܕܗܘ ܡܪܗ ܕܢܡܘܣܐ܆ ܘܡܛܠ‬ ‫ܗܢܐ ܐܬܝܗܒ ܠܗ ܗܢܐ ܟܠܗ ܫܘܠܛܢܐ ܕܢܬܦܠܓ ܒܟܠ ܕ̈ܪܝܢ ܟܕ ܚܕ ܗܘ‪ .‬ܘܢܬܪܫܡ‬ ‫ܒܟܠ ܦܓ�ܝܢ‪ .‬ܟܕ � ܦܠܝܓ܇ ܘܢܬܬܨܝܪ ܒܟܠ ̈‬ ‫ܠܒܝܢ‪ .‬ܟܕ � ܡܬܦܣܩ܇ ܘܢܛܘܣ ܥܠ‬ ‫ܟܠܗܘܢ ܟܕ � �ܐ܆ ܘܢܟܣ ܠܟܠܗܘܢ‪ .‬ܟܕ � ̇‬ ‫ܒܗܬ‪̇ .‬‬ ‫ܘܡܠܦ ܠܟܠܗܘܢ‪ .‬ܟܕ �‬ ‫ܕܒܪ ܒܩܛܝܪܐ‪̇ .‬‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܘܡܠܟ ܠܗܘܢ‪ .‬ܟܕ � ̇ܗܘܐ ܠܗܘܢ ܐܠܘܨܐ‪ .‬ܘܡܕܟܪ ܠܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܕܝܢܐ ܕܥܬܝܕ ܟܕ ܡܙܗܪ ܠܗܘܢ‪ .‬ܘܡܥܗܕ ܠܗܘܢ ܡܠܟܘܬܐ ܕܫܡܝܐ ܕܢܬܝܐܒܘܢ‬ ‫ܗܘܘܐ ‪ms‬‬ ‫ܐܬܥܓܢܘ ‪ms‬‬ ‫‪83 ms om. sey.‬‬ ‫ܪܝܢ ‪84 ms‬‬‫ܗܘܐ ‪85 corrected by scribe from‬‬ ‫‪81‬‬ ‫‪82‬‬

15. EPHREM’S LETTER TO PUBLIUS

183

̇ ̇ .‫ܠܗ‬ ̈ ‫ ܘܡܚܘܐ ܠܗܘܢ‬.‫ܕܛܒܬܐ܆ ܕܢܬܪܓܪܓܘܢ ܠܗܝܢ‬ ‫ܘܡܒܕܩ ܠܗܘܢ ܦܘ̈ܪܥܢܐ‬ ‫ܕܝܚܝܕܝܐ‬ ‫ ܘܡܘܕܥ ܠܗܘܢ ܒܣܝܡܘܬܗ‬.‫ܥܙܝܙܘܬܗ ܕܕܝ ̣ܢܐ܆ ܕܢܙܕܓܪܘܢ‬ ̣ ̇ ‫ ܥܡܗܘܢ‬.‫ܕܢܬܠܒܒܘܢ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܠܟܠܗܝܢ‬ ‫ ܘܥܠܝܗܘܢ‬.‫ܛܒܬܐ ܟܕ ܡܚܝܠ ܠܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܪܗܛ‬ ̈ ̈ ̇ .‫ܘܡܟܣ ܠܗܘܢ‬ ̇ ‫ܠܣܢܝܬܐ‬ .‫ܕܕܡܝܢ ܐܢܘܢ ̈ܪܚܡܘܗܝ ܠܕܡܪܗ‬ ‫ܛܐܣ ܟܕ ܡܓܗܢܝܢ‬ ̣ a ‫ ܘ� ܡܨܛܡܥܪ ܡܢܗܘܢ‬.‫( ܡܦܠܦܠܝܢ ܒܨܐܘܬܗܘܢ‬193 ) ‫ܕ� ܢܐܕ ܡܢܗܘܢ ܟܕ‬ .‫ ܘܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܡܫܬܡܥܝܢ ܠܗ܆ ܥܬܝܕ ܕܢܥܗܕ ܐܢܘܢ‬.‫ܟܕ ] [ ܡܥܪܓܠܝܢ ܒܣܝܢܐ‬ ‫ ܗܪܟܐ ܥܡܗܘܢ ܚܠܝܛ܇‬.‫ܘ�ܝܠܝܢ ܕ� ܡܬܛܦܝܣܝܢ ܠܗ܆ ܢܗܘܐ ܠܗܘܢ ܡܕܟܪܢܐ‬ ̇ ‫ ܘܬܡܢ ܩܕܡܝܗܘܢ‬.‫ܒܟܠ ܐܣܟܝܡ‬ ‫ܩܐܡ ܒܗܢܐ ܝܘܡܐ܀܀‬ ̇ ـܝ‬:‫ܒܗܝ ܡܚܙܝܬܐ ܫܦܝܬܐ܆ ܕܣܒܪܬܐ ܩܕܝܫܬܐ ܕܡܪܝ‬ ‫ ܘܟܕ ܗܠܝܢ ̇ܚܙܝܬ‬24 ̈ ‫ ܚܢܓܬܐ ܡܪܝ�ܬܐ‬.‫ ܘܪܘܚܝ ܕܥܟܬ܆ ܘܩܘܡܬܝ ܥܕܡܐ ܠܥܦܪܐ ܐܬܪܟܢܬ‬.‫ܬܚܒܬ‬ ̈ ‫ܟܘܬܡܬܝ܆ ܒܫܝܓܬܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܕܡܥܝ܇ ܘܐܬܕܟܪܬ‬ ‫ܠܒܝ ܐܬܡܠܝ ܗܘܐ܆ ܕܛܟ ܢܬܚܘ̈ܪܢ‬ ̇ ̈ ̈ ̇ ̈ .‫ܠܗܘ ܡܪܐ ̇ܛܒܐ ܘܐܠܗܐ ̇ܢܝܚܐ܆ ܕܥܛܐ ܐܫܛܪ ܚܘܒܐ ܕܚܝܒܐ ܒܕܡܥܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܒܚܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܘܡܩܒܠ ܒܟܬܐ܆ ܚܠܦ‬ ‫ ܘܟܕ ܥܕܡܐ ܠܗܪܟܐ ܡܛܝܬ܆ ܐܚܕܬ‬.‫ܕܝܩܕܐ‬ ̈ ‫ ܘܛܦܣܬ܆‬.‫ܟܢܦܝ ̇ܗ ܕܬܘܬ ܢܦܫܐ‬ ‫ܓܘܣܐ ܒܬܝܒܘܬܐ܆ ܘܐܣܬܬܪܬ ܬܚܝܬ‬ ̇ ̇ :‫ ܘܐܡܪܬ ܕܡܢܐ ܡܟܝܠ ܥܡ ܗܠܝܢ ܡܬܒܥܐ ܠܝ ܕܐܩܪܒ‬.‫ܒܛܠܠܗ ܕܡܟܝܟܘܬܐ‬ ̇ ̈ ‫ܕܒܚܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܠܗܘ ܕ� ܣܢܝܩ ܥܠ‬ ‫ܕܗܝ ܗܝ ܕܒܚܐ‬ ̣ ‫ܘܝܩܕܐ܇ ܐ� ܐܢ ܪܘܚܐ ܡܟܝܟܬܐ܆‬ ̇ :‫ܝܩܕܐ‬ ̈ ‫ ܘܠܒܐ ܫܚܝܩܐ ܚܠܦ‬.‫ܠܡܚܣܝܘ ܠܒܘܨ̈ܪܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ ܕܡܫܟܚ‬:‫ܡܫܡܠܝܐ‬ ̈ .‫ ܘܚܠܦ ܢܘܩܝܐ ܕܚܡܪܐ ܕܡܥܐ ܕܚܘܣܝܐ‬.�‫ܕܐܠܗܐ � ܡܣ‬ ̇ ̇ ̈ ‫ ܗܢܐ ܗܟܝܠ ܡܕܡ‬25 ‫ ܒܗܝ ܡܚܙܝܬܐ ܡܠܝܠܬܐ ܘܚܝܬܐ܆ ܕܒܗ ܪܦܬܝܢ‬:‫ܕܚܙܝܬ‬ ̈ ̇ ‫ܨܠܡܐ‬ ̈ :‫ ܕܡܢ ܐܕܡ ܥܕܡܐ ܠܫܘܠܡܗ ܕܥܠܡܐ‬.‫ܕܒܢܝܢܫܐ‬ ‫ܕܥ ̈ܒܕܝܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܟܠܗܘܢ‬ ̇ ‫ܘܡܢ ܢܚܡܬܐ ܥܕܡܐ ܠܝܘܡ ܕܝ ̣ܢܐ ܕܟܐܢܘܬܐ܆ ܘܕܫܡܥܬ ܡܢ ܗܘ ܩ� ܒܪܝܟܐ‬ ̇ ‫ ܐܚܝ ܚܒܝܒܐ܀‬:‫ܡܫܬܡܥ ܗܘܐ܆ ܒܐܓܪܬܐ ܗܕܐ ܪܫܡܬ ܠܟ‬ ‫ܓܘܗ‬ ‫ܕܡܢ‬ ̣ From the letter to Publius (Poplios) by the holy Mar Ephrem

1 You do well not to let drop from your hands the polished mirror of the holy Gospel of your Lord, for it provides the likeness of everyone who looks into it, and it shows the resemblance of all who peer into it. And, while it preserves its own nature and undergoes no change, having no spots and being quite free from any dirt, yet when coloured objects are placed in front of it, it changes its aspect, though it itself undergoes no change: when white objects are put in front of it, it turns white; when black ones, it takes on their hue; when red, it becomes red like them; with beautiful objects, it reflects their beauty; with ugly, it becomes unsightly like them. It depicts in itself every limb of the body: it rebukes the defects of the ugly, so that they may remedy themselves, and remove the blackness from their faces. To the beautiful it declares that they should be careful of their beauty, that it does not become spotted with dirt, but rather, they should add to their natural created beauty with adornments of their own choosing. Though dumb, the mirror speaks: in its silence it cries out; although you might think it was a dead object, it makes its proclamation. Though still, it dances about; though it has

184

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD no body (lit. belly), its womb is spacious, and in those hidden chambers within it every limb is depicted. All kinds of shapes are featured in a fraction of a moment, they are created within it with a speed that is imperceptible.

2 For this mirror is a figure (lit. shadow) of the holy preaching of the outward Gospel. Within itself is depicted the beauty of the beautiful who look into it, and again in it the defects of the ugly who despise it are rebuked. And just as this natural mirror is but a figure (lit. shadow) of the Gospel, so too the Gospel is but a figure (lit. shadow) of the beauty that is above which does not fade and at which all the sins of the created world are rebuked. For in it 86 reward is given to all who have kept their beauty from being defiled with mud. For to everyone who peers into this mirror his sins are visible, and everyone who considers it, sees there the lot which is reserved for him, whether good or bad. There the kingdom of heaven is depicted, visible to those who have a clear eye; there the lofty ranks of the good to be seen on high, there the raised ranks of the intermediate can be distinguished, and there the low ranks of the wicked are marked out. There the fair places, prepared for those who are worthy of them, can be recognized, there paradise is visible, joyous with its flowers.

3 In that mirror Gehenna too is visible, all fiery, ready for those who deserve to live there. In paradise are the glorious things promised to the good, waiting for the time when they shall receive their owners, with confident looks upon them; while in Gehenna the things promised to the wicked are groaning at the time when they shall see their owners, with their whole body bowed down. There the outer darkness 87 is clearly to be seen, and proceeding from it can be heard the sound of wailing and weeping, of moans and gnashing of teeth. 88 There, from their bonds, men cry out in their torture, which is all the greater according to their wickedness ‘lit. and strength is added to them for their wickedness), so that they are justly afflicted.

4 There is Dives who changed his raiment every day, as he delighted in his luxuries. Now he wails from the tortures of Sheol. There Dives’ doleful voice is to be heard, crying out to Abraham, the father of the just, saying, “Send your son Lazarus to wet my tongue, for I am in affliction, 89 because my sins are burning me, and my wicked deeds are roasting me as if they were coals of oak 90”. The just reply leaves the mouth of the upright one, sent on its way to the wicked like a swift messenger, flying fast-winged above the fearful chasm 91 which is set as a boundary between the good and the wicked; and the letter of justice, written down at the bid-

The mirror (so ms bah), but probably read beh (i.e. the Gospel). Matt 7:12, 22:13, 25:30. 88 Matt 22:13. 89 Luke 16:24. 90 Ps 120:4. 91 Luke 16:26. 86 87

15. EPHREM’S LETTER TO PUBLIUS ding of that just mouth, is carried direct by it, sent to that deaf ear of the man who never opened the gate of his ear for any holy message to enter.

In that letter, which it bore like a swift messenger, were inscribed these melodious words of just judgement: “My son, remember that you received your good things and your luxuries during your life time, while Lazarus formerly received his pain and affliction, and now he is unable to come to help you in your torments, because you did not come to his help when he was tormented in sickness. For this reason you are asking him to help you, just as he used to ask you to help him – but you refused; and he is unable to come because of the great impassable chasm that separates us, so that no one from you can came to us, and none from us can come to you”. 92

5 Look carefully, and gaze with the eye of your mind on that mirror which I have just now been telling you about. Look at the twelve thrones 93 in it, placed ready for judgement; look at the tribes standing there in terror, at the many nations standing trembling; look at their shaking bodies, at their knees knocking together; look at their hearts beating fast, at their minds which curdle in fear; look at their faces bowed down, look at the shame fastened on them like darkness; look at their souls, all troubled (?), at their spirits flickering; look at their tears welling over and soaking the dust under their feet; look at the colour of their faces, turned to green: one takes on the colour, and passes it on to his neighbour. Look at their faces which used to be happy, but are now changed to become like sooty cauldrons. 94 Listen to their innumerable groans, to their wailing moan, listen to their bitter lamentation, and the sound of their inward parts knocking together. Look at their secret deeds, which have now come out into the open: 95 what was performed in the dark is now as clear as the sun; things they did in secret now cry out with a loud voice. Look how everyone stands with his actions in front of him, justly accusing him before his judge. Look at their evil thoughts, which have now taken on bodily form, and stand there in front of their masters accusing them. Look at the disparaging whispers which now cry out at the top of their voice, and the hidden traps which are now made manifest before them.

A little further on:

6. Look at the judge of righteousness, ready seated; look at the Word of his Father, at the wisdom of his nature, at the arm of his glory, at the right hand of his mercy, at the ray of his light, at the manifestation of his rest, at him who is equal in essence with his begetter, at him whose nature is commensurate with that from which he sprang, at him who is near to him, yet far from him, at him who is mingled with him, yet distinct from him, who is with him and is not distant, at his

Luke 16:25, 6. Matt 19:28 = Luke 22:30. 94 Joel 2:6; Nah 2:10. 95 Cf Matt 10:27. 92 93

185

186

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD right hand and not far off, who shares his throne, and not as an alien; the gate 96 of salvation, the way 97 of truth, the propitiatory lamb, 98 the purificatory sacrifice, the priest who removes guilt, the purifying sprinkling, the creator of works, the fashioner and establisher, the moulder of creatures, who gives feeling to dust, clothing earth with perception, giving movement to all flesh, making distinct the places of every species, transforming innumerable faces, renewing the minds of all generations; he sows all kinds of wisdom in all things. The stretcher out of the heavens, 99 the adorner of the luminaries, who gives names to them all, who established the earth on foundations that cannot be felt, the architect of the mountains, the builder of the hills, the ordainer of vegetation, who causes trees to germinate, who… ? … wood, who causes fruit to come, who provides different tastes, who gives colours to the flowers and different shapes to all the plants; who measured the heavens with the span of his fingers – with that hand which cannot be measured; who measured out in the palm of his hand the dust of the earth – in that right hand of his that is beyond measurement; who weighed the mountains in scales – with that knowledge which cannot be comprehended; who weighed the hills in the balance 100 – with that unfailing understanding which considers there the gathered waters of the sea that surround created things, and the deeps of the ocean that cannot be explored by us, as less than a mere drop. 101

7 God of God, second essential light, treasury of all riches that have been, or shall be, created; Judge of the tribes, 102 the measure of justice, the scales that know no deceit, the straight rod, the balance that does not deceive, unfailing wisdom, mind that never passes away, he who brings change in creation, the renewer of nature, who gives life to mortality, who dispels the cloud of darkness, who brings to nought the power of iniquity, who weakens the hand of Sheol, who breaks off the sting 103 of wickedness, who brings out the captives 104 into the light, who raises up those prostrate in perdition, the dispeller of darkness, the establisher of rest, who opens the mouths that are closed, who gives breath to the soul as of old. 105 8 Look then on that divine child, whose names exceed what creation can count, whose titles surpass what the world can reckon; king of kings, 106 the Christ as-

John 10:9. John 14:6. 98 Cf John 1:29. 99 Cf Isa 42:5; 44:24. 100 Isa 11:12. 101 Isa 11:15. 102 Cf Matt 19:28 = Luke 22:30. 103 Cf 1 Cor 15:55 (Hos 13:14). 104 Cf Isa 42:7. 105 Cf Gen 2:7. 106 1 Tim 6:15 (Apoc 17:14; 19:16). 96 97

15. EPHREM’S LETTER TO PUBLIUS sured by the prophets, who is speaken of in the prophets, 107 the sender of the Spirit, who sanctifies through the Spirit every soul, whose aid is manifest. Consider this only-begotten one, with so many names, who carries out the will of him who sent him, whose will conforms with the will of his begetter. Look at him on that day, sitting at the right hand of his begetter, setting the sheep to his right at that hour, and the goats to his left at that moment, calling to his blessed ones, “Come, inherit the kingdom” – that was prepared for them from of old in his knowledge, and was made ready for them from the beginning of creation. 108 He thanks them for having fed him when he was hungry – in the person of the poor; for having given him to drink when he was thirsty – in the person of the ill-treated; for having clothed him when he was naked – in the person of the destitute; for having visited him when he was in prison – in the person of prisoners; for having taken him in when he was a stranger – in the person of foreigners; for having visited him when he was ill 109 – in person of the sick. And when they did not acknowledge before him their good works, those excellent works, which were depicted on their limbs, themselves cried out on their behalf and gave their testimony; and like excellent fruit on delightful trees they festooned them and hung like clusters, in order to testify the truth concerning those who had performed these deeds (lit. them).

9 For just as the actions of the wicked accuse the wicked 110 before the righteous judge, 111 making them bend double and hold down their heads in shame and silence, in the same way the excellent deeds of the good make their defense before him who is Good. For the deeds of all mankind are at once silent and eloquent – silent by their nature, but eloquent when one looks at them. For there are no questions asked there, since the judge has full knowledge, nor are there any replies, for he hears by what he sees. He hears by what he sees, and he sees by what he hears, since by means of what is not expressed there is hearing and sight, speed (or lightness) and touch, perception and the sense of smell, taste and discernment, knowledge and judgement; and by the same unexpressed means there is handed out reward for (or consisting of) good deeds (or things) and punishment for (or consisting of) evil to those on both sides, on the right and on the left. 112 Not that there really is a right or a left there, but these are just terms we use for those who are honoured, and for those who are of low estate; and we speak (?) of a [judge’s (?)] throne, and we call the place of the good “the right”, and we name the place of the wicked “the left”; we call the good “sheep”, because of their humility, and we call the wicked “goats” because of their obstinacy; we call his justice “scales” and his reward towards us “the measure of truth”.

Or “speaks in the prophets”. Matt 25:33–4. 109 Matt 25:35–6. 110 Cf Isa 59:12; Wis 4:20; 2(4) Esd 7:35. 111 2 Tim 4:8. 112 The translation of this sentence is a little uncertain. 107 108

187

188

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD 10 Take hold, therefore, of that smooth mirror of the divine Gospel in your two hands and gaze with the pure eye that can make you see that divine mirror – for not everyone is able to see in it his soul (or himself), only the person who has a heart that can distinguish, a mind that can feel, an eye that is desirous of beholding what can help it. Look into it, then, and see all the reflexions of creation, the delineation of mankind – of both the good and the wicked. Out of it peer the beautiful images of the works of the good, and the disfigured images of the actions of the wicked – for they are all conceived within it, ready to be born in the proper time, so as to sing the praises of those who performed the (good) works, and to reprove (?) those who carried out the (evil) actions. See, just as the mirror reproves (?) the ugly here (on earth), so it will there too, showing up in itself their ugly actions. And just as it can make the distinction and praise the good here, so it will delineate in its midst their good deeds. 11 Sometimes we too used to stand in error, and our …?… were sunk in pride of mind as if in mud, without our realising our error, in that our soul was unable to perceive itself, and though we gazed every day (in the mirror), we were like blind men groping 113 in the dark, because our inner mind did not possess the faculty of distinguishing. It was then, as if it were out of a deep sleep, that the flowing mercies of the Most High were sprinkled like pure water on our sleepfulness, and we were awoken out of our sleep, and we boldly grasped the mirror in order to see ourselves (or our soul) in it, and at that moment we were rebuked for our faults, and we were discovered to be destitute of every good habit, but instead made into a lodging place for all kinds of destructive thoughts, and a home and resting place for every lust.

12 For I saw there beautiful people, and I was desirous of their beauty, and the places of the good where they were standing, and I was eager for their position. I saw their bridal chamber opposite, which no one who has not a lamp may enter; 114 I saw their joy, and I myself sat down in mourning, not possessing works worthy of that bridal chamber. I saw them clothed with the robe of light, and I was grieved that (I) had prepared no virtuous raiment. 115 I saw their crowns adorned with victory, and I was pained that I had no victorious deeds with which to be crowned. I saw there the virgins knocking, and no one opening for them, 116 and I groaned that I was empty of the works of that blessed oil.

13 I saw there great crowds, crying out at the gate, 117 and no one answering them, and I was disturbed that I had not that way of life which authorised the opening Cf Deut 28:29; Isa 59:10. Cf Matt 25:lff. 115 Cf Matt 22:12. 116 Cf Matt 25:11. 117 Matt 25:10; Luke 13:25. 113 114

15. EPHREM’S LETTER TO PUBLIUS of the gate of the kingdom. I heard a clamour of many voices saying “Lord, Lord, open for us”, 118 and a voice from thence fell on my ears, which swore by itself that “I do not recognize you 119 as being worthy of salvation”. I saw there those who were clamouring “we have eaten and drunken in your presence”, 120 but he answered and told them “it was not me you were wanting, but simply because you ate bread and had your fill”. 121

14 Then I, who like them, had always taken shelter in his name, and had benefited from the honours given to it, having always spread his name, like a covering, over my secret faults, – then I was seized with fear, and trembling shook me, and a great trepidation counselled me to turn back and see if there might meet me any of the provisions required for that narrow road 122 which leads to the land of salvation (or life). For I did not see anyone there who was in a position to succour his neighbour by wetting his tongue in that burning fire; for that deep chasm, which makes a division between the good and the wicked, did not allow them to succour one another. 123

15 I saw there pure virgins 124 whose virginity had been rejected because it had not been adorned with the good oil of excellent works; they begged their fellow virgins to give them aid, but they got no pity; (they asked) to be given a chance to go and buy (good) works for themselves, but they were refused it, because the end (and) their departure from the world was imminent. And I approached the gate of the kingdom of heaven, and I also saw there those who did not have the title of virginity, but who were crowned with victorious deeds, their conduct having filled the place of virginity. For just as those who had been betrothed to him in body alone had been rejected, being bare of the clothing of good deeds, so those whose bodies had been betrothed in chaste marriage, while their spirit was bound in the love of their Lord, were chosen, being clothed in love of Him as with a robe, with the desire for Him permeating all their limbs.

16 When I saw these there I said in my mind, “let no man any longer trust in the chaste reputation alone of virginity when it is deprived of the works which constitute the oil of the lamps. And while I was chastened by the fearful sight of the torture of others, I heard another voice from the mirror’s mouth, which called out, “be careful, sluggish one, of your poor soul, for it is something very fearful to fall into the hands of the living God. 125 Have you not heard the children crying out to you Matt 25:11; Luke 13:25. Matt 25:12; Luke 13:25. 120 Luke 12:26. 121 John 6:26. 122 Matt 7:14. 123 Cf Luke 16:24–5. 124 Cf Matt 25:lff. 125 Heb 10:31. 118 119

189

190

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD that “if a man gain the entire world, but lose his soul, what profit has he?” Or again, “what can a man give in exchange for his soul”? 126 Do you not see what happened to the man whose land brought in vast crops, and because he said to his soul, “my soul, eat drink and take your rest and pleasure, for you have vast crops stored up for you for many years”, 127 have you not heard that, while the word was still sweet in his mouth, a bitter message was poured out into his inmost ear (lit. womb of his ear), crying out to him as he was all faint, and saying, “this night they will require your beloved soul”. Who will have all this that you have prepared”? 128

17 Hold in awe this imprint (ms slumber) of yours, and consider where are all those children of Adam who have swarmed in the world like locusts 129 from the very first day. Wake yourself from this slumber which makes you lax, and which is spread like the shadow of death over all your limbs. Stand up and come, take yourself back to those former generations that you have heard about: where is Adam, and where are your ancestors who luxuriated in the midst (lit. womb) of the garden of Eden like well-fed sheep, and who spoke fearlessly with God as though they were his fellows – (men) whose arm held subject the entire creation under its authority; their hand controlled sea and dry land, the fearful dragons they trampled under foot, while the fierce wild animals of today bent their heads in subjection to them. Their mind wax fixed on heaven, and they explored the bottom of the depths as if it was dry land.

18 Where are those ten generations from Adam to Noah? Were they not washed away in the Flood of water? Where are the generations of the men of Sodom? Were they not also washed away in the Flood of fire? Where are the generations from that time up till today, where are they? – people who at that time lived for a thousand years more or less, have they not faded out and come to an end? And if their names had not been recorded in ink on the skins of lambs, and so preserved the memory of their names for us, we would not even have known that they existed. 130

19 Come, I will take you out to the dark graveyards and descend with me in your mind to lowest Sheol, and I will show you there kings lying prostrate on their faces, with their crowns buried in the ground with them. Come, look at the nobles, who luxuriated in silks, how worms have become their bed and vermin their covering. 131 Come and look at the generals who once commanded myriads of forces, how they are now become useless vessels of dust, and something that has no perception. Take a good look at the dust of the ground, and gaze upon it, for it re-

Matt 16:26. Luke 12:19. 128 Luke 12:20. 129 Cf Isa 40:22. 130 Cf Wis 2:2. 131 Cf Jas 5:l. (Isa 66:24; Mark 9:48). 126 127

15. EPHREM’S LETTER TO PUBLIUS sembles you. How long will you deceive yourself, thinking that you are better than the grass of the roof, 132 grass which a single day’s heat withers up; and the breath of fever can dry up a healthy body in a single day too.

Where are 133 the kings with their garments, their crowns and their purple; where are their powers and their wars, their armies and assemblies, their wealth and their treasure ? Look at their spears lying broken, at their bows unstrung, at their swords rusted, at their weapons decayed: generations which have removed and passed on, the thread of their lives shriveled up like the home of worms at their death, and like a warp ready to be cut off (the loom), 134 they suffer the destruction of uprooting.

20 See how their songs have been changed into mourning, their music into the sound of weeping, their mirth overthrown (and turned) into mourning, their pleasant tunes (changed) to songs of lament. A garment of spider’s web has been woven for them there, 135 and they have a despicable bed of worms beneath them, and a covering of vermin is spread over them like some garment. Upturned tables lie before them, the brilliant position of their (former) luxurious state is overthrown, and their post of office is upturned and rendered quite useless. Their honour lies prostrate in the dust, and their luxury is hidden in ashes there. Bridegrooms snatched away, and brides, left deserted, have been cast down from their very bridal chamber, with crowns fading on their heads and sprinkled with the dust on the earth beside them; a gloomy garment is spread over them, one which Sheol has woven for them on a dingy web. You would hear the sound of wailing from every mouth, for no one is able to comfort his companion there. 136

21 The sight their eyes see gives them pain, stretching to the boundary of the chasm and passing quickly over it and flying to the garden of Eden, hovering over God’s Paradise, it beholds the blessed resting place, and is envious of the tables of the kingdom; it hears the sound of pure songs mixed with sacred melodies and mingled with the praises of God, which make a wreath for their height with their full extent, and open up the gates of the kingdom. The (songs) hover in front of their Lord in joy, just sending their sound from one mouth to another. The vision of the eye is also permitted there to come and go, giving pain or joy to either side – the good regard their own lot as all the better when they see the wicked, and they rejoice all the more in it (sc their own lot), while the wicked see themselves the more condemned, and their pain increased. 22 And maybe it is that the Gehenna of the wicked consists in what they see, and it is their very separation that bums them, and their mind acts as the flame. The

Ps 128:6; cp Isa 40:7–8. Cf Bar 3:16. 134 Isa 38:12. 135 Cf Isa 59:5. 136 Cf 2(4) Esd 7:105. 132 133

191

192

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD hidden judge who is seated in the discerning mind has spoken, and has become for them there the righteous judge, who beats them without mercy with the torments of contrition. Perhaps it is this which separates them out, sending each one to the appropriate place; perhaps it is this which grasps the good with its right hand stretched out (or just right hand), sending them to that right hand of mercy; and it again which takes the wicked in its upright left hand, casting them into the place called “the left”; 137 maybe it is this which silently accuses them, and quietly pronounces sentence upon them.

23 My opinion is that this inner intelligence has been made the judge and the law, for it is the embodiment of the shadow of the law, and it is the shadow of that Lord of the law. And for this reason such authority has been given to it so that it may be separated up in every generation and yet remain one, and be marked in every body yet remain undivided, and depicted in every heart yet remain not split up, flying unwearied over all, and rebuking all without shame, teaching all, yet using no force, giving counsel, but employing no compulsion, reminding them of the judgement to come by means of warnings, bringing to their mind the kingdom of heaven so that they may desire it, explaining the rewards of the good so that they may yearn for them, showing to them the power of judgement, that they may restrain themselves, telling them of the gentleness of the Only-begotten, that they may take courage, running with them after every good thing and strengthening them, hovering over them and rebuking them as they stoop to what is hateful. For its mercy resembles that of its Lord, in that it does not depart from them when they are soiled in filth, and is not ashamed of them when they lie wallowing in the mud. Those who listen to it, it will remind, those who disobey it, it will overtake. Here (on earth) it is mingled with them in every way, while there it stands up in front of them on this day (of judgement).

24 When I saw all this in that clear mirror of the holy Gospel of my Lord, my soul grew feeble, and my spirit was quenched, and my stature bent down to the dust. My heart was filled with bitter groans, in the hope that somehow my stains might be washed white in my tears. I remembered the good Lord and gentle God, who wipes out the bond 138 of the debtors’ debt through tears, who accepts weeping in place of burnt sacrifices. And when I reached this point I took refuge in penitence, and sheltered under the wings of repentance, and I took cover in the shade of humility, saying “what else do I need henceforth to offer him who has no need of burnt sacrifices except a meek spirit, 139 for this constitutes the perfect sacrifice that can make propitiation for shortcomings; and a broken heart139 in place of burnt offerings is something that God will not reject. Instead of a libation of wine (I will offer) tears that propitiate”. Cf Matt 25:33ff. Col 2:14. 139 Ps 51:17. 137 138

15. EPHREM’S LETTER TO PUBLIUS

193

25 This, then, is what I saw in that eloquent and living mirror, in which the images of all the actions of mankind vibrate – from Adam up to the end of the world, and from the resurrection until the day of the just judgement. And what I heard from that blessed voice which was audible from inside the mirror I have recorded in this letter, my beloved brother.

COMMENTARY

1 polished mirror of the holy Gospel: Imagery of the mirror was already familiar from the NT (1 Cor 13:12; Jas 1:23), but for Ephrem it held a particular fascination, 140 and he uses it again and again in all sorts of contexts. For the Gospel as a mirror, see especially {295} H. Fid. XLI.10.4 “the Gospel is your wondrous mirror”; compare the “mirror of the scriptures” in H. Fid. LXVII.8.1; H. Ieiun. I.7.1; Serm. I.vii.118. The imagery was also popular in Manichaean literature, e.g. Manichaean Psalms (ed. ALLBERRY), p. 9,4f, and the Cologne Mani Codex, quoted in Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 5 (1970), p. 169 n. 182; in other Syriac writers, e.g. Odes Sol. 13,1; A. Thom. § 112; Jacob of Serugh (ed. BEDJAN) III, p. 335f; Thomas of Marga (ed. BUDGE), V. 15 (E.T., p. 540ff) etc. Polished: cp “smooth mirror”, in §§ 10, 24, – phrase found in H. Fid. II.1.1; XII.19; H. Virg. XXXI.12.1. shows the resemblance of all who peer into it: similar thought in H. Haer XXXII.3–4, and often. spots: cp. H. Nisib. XVI.1.2 “(a mirror) with spots in it”. coloured objects: Similarly H. Haer. XXXII.7.2 “(the mirror) takes on every colour, while its own colour is not affected (lit. dyed)”. undergoes no change: Thus H. Haer. XXXII.16.2 “(the mirror) is without change”. beauty: cp also §§ 2, 10; similarly H. Fid. XII.19.2; H. Parad. IV.9.3. 141 ugly: Ephrem frequently uses the terms (morally) “ugly” and “ugliness” in connection with mirror imagery, 142 e.g. H. Virg. XI.1 “It is very hard for a wicked person to look at his own (moral) ugliness: Good comes to him like a mirror that rebukes his ugliness when he thinks he is beautiful”; cp also H. Virg. XXXI.12.3; H. Haer. XXXII. 11.8; XLI.3: H. Eccl. VII.8 H. Nisib. XVI.lf; Serm. I.ii.228. rebukes: so also § 2. The word is often used of the mirror, e.g. H.Virg. XI.l (quoted above); XXXI.12.5; H. Fid. XVIII.12.3; H. Haer. LV.7.5; H. Nisib. XVI.4.2. defects: so also § 2, and thus H. Virg. XXXI.12.4; H. Fid. II.18.2; H. Haer. XLI.3.5; H. Nisib. XVI.4.2. spotted with dirt: similar phraseology in H. Fid. XII.19.3–4.

See E. BECK, Das Bild vom Spiegel bei Ephräm, in O.C.P. 19 (1953), p. 5–24. Cf BECK, art. cit., p. 15. 142 For the contrast “beautiful… ugly”, cf H. Haer, XXXII.3.2, where the mirror is “perfect with the perfect, and weak with the weak”. 140 141

194

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

though dumb the mirror speaks: the paradox of the silent object which nevertheless is eloquent recurs in § 9, and is characteristic of Ephrem; cp H. Fid. LXXXI.6 « symbols that are eloquent ». womb (of mirror): thus also H. Haer. XXXII.4.2; cp also Jacob of Serugh (ed. BEDJAN) III, p. 336,1. {296} 2 this mirror is a figure…: cp BECK, art, cit., p. 8ff. beauty of the beautiful: the same phrase in H. Ieiun. IX. 1.5. who have a clear eye: cp H. Fid. LXVII.8 “The scriptures are set as a mirror in which he whose eye is clear sees the image of truth”. ranks of the good… intermediate… lowly: cp H. Parad. II.10 where Ephrem differentiates between the various “ranks” of the “lowly”, “intermediate” and “exalted”. Cp H. Eccl. XXXIV.4.6–8. flowers: a commonplace, e.g. H. Parad. X and passim. Cf 2(4) Esd 6:3. 3 Gehenna, too, is visible: cp Sermo de Domino Nostro V (BECK p. 4 = LAMY I, col. 157) “Your word is mirror to the gentiles in which they can see the hidden death which swallows up their lives”. 4 Dives: the parable of Luke 16:19ff is a favourite one with Ephrem; cf H. Parad. I.12; VII.27f; H. Nisib. X.7f; Serm. I.iii,159ff. For the interest of the biblical quotations, see the introduction, p. 269f above. letter: while the motif of the letter is recurrent in Jacob of Serugh, 143 it is not otherwise characteristic of Ephrem; cf H. Maria XVII.9 (LAMY II, col. 591; of doubtful authenticity), where the motif is introduced into the description of the Annunciation. Cf also Odes Sol. 23,5; A. Thom. § 111. gate of his ear: cf H. Haer. XLV.4.6 “the gate of the mouth, ears and eyes”; LIII.3.4 “the gates of your ears”; Serm. I.iii.201; Sermo de Domino Nostro X (BECK p, 9) quoted below § 7), The metaphor is implied in H. Nisib. LXII.14.1 (“knocking”). The ear as a gate is a figure used especially in connection with Eve-Mary typology. 144 5 Look at…look at…: a similar series in § 6; for such an anaphora of “look at”, cp H. Fid. LIII.12.3 and especially S. Fid. VI.233f; Serm. I.v.568ff. In later literature, e.g. Jacob of Serugh (ed. BEDJAN) III, p. 460. 12 thrones: cf Aphrahat Dem.XXII, 16 (PS I, col. 1024). tribes…nations:, i.e. Jews and gentiles; cp commentary to §7. troubled (mpassdan): The verb is not recorded in the lexica, and PAYNE SMITH gives only Neo-Syriac passada “perturbator, iniquus”, {297} which is evidently related. A corruption of mpsrn “rejected” (only known from the native lexica) is unlikely. Cf my Aspects of Greek words in Syriac (s.v. sacra), AAW Gött. 96 (1975). Jacob, however, does not use it in his Homily on Dives and Lazarus (no 16 in vol. I (ed. BEDJAN); cp p. 392). 144 Brought out very clearly in Sermo III (ed. ASSEMANI, vol. VI), p. 607E : “By means of the serpent the Evil one poured out his poison in the ear of Eve; the Good one brought low his mercy and entered through Mary’s ear”. (A better text of this memra is to be found in BM Or. 8606, f. 112a–113b, a Melkite manuscript written in Edessa in 823; cp. J.T.S. ns 13 (1962), pp. 249–58, and ns 19 (1968), pp. 622–3). (See now BECK, Nachträge, p. 41.) 143

15. EPHREM’S LETTER TO PUBLIUS

195

their secret deeds which have now come out into the open: the thought of this paragraph is rather closely paralleled in a memra thought by Beck not to be genuine, Serm. I.v.85–6 “when my deeds come out into the open” (cp. 318ff). clear as sun: cp Serm. I.v.326 “they see their sins as it were in sunlight”. bodily form: the same idea is found in H. Eccl. XVII.6 “sins took on strength and became a single weight which each of us carries, laden on his shoulder”; cf also Appendix to H. Eccl. (BECK p. 137) “each man carries his works before the judge”. For the personification of sins, compare Targum to Zech 3:1 (personified sins stand up and accuse Joshua), and to Mal 2:3. 145 6f. I know of no close parallel to this magnificent list of titles of Christ, 146 although such lists are to be found in H. Virg. XXXI and Sermo I in Hebd. Sanctum (LAMY II, 347ff; authenticity uncertain); compare also A. Thom. § 50, Aphrahat Dem XIV,39 (PS I, col. 681f), XVII,2 (PS I,788), and the long description of love in Dem XIV,14 (PS I, col. 601f). Outside Syriac, compare Macarius Hom. LII.7 (ed. MARRIOTT) (a reference I owe to the Revd. Dr R. Murray S. J.). 6 judge of righteousness: I have not noticed this title elsewhere in Ephrem; 147 cf Afrahat Dem. XXII (PS I, col. 1033) “judge clothed in righteousness”, Marutha (ed. KMOSKO, OC 3 (1903), p. 406, 10) “the judgement of his righteousness”. wisdom of his nature: cp H. Azym. I.15.1 “the wisdom of God (i.e. Christ) came down” (cp 1 Cor. 1:21), and H. Nisib. Appendix 9.1 (Christ is mare hekmata). 148 ray of his light: cf H. Fid. LXXI.20 “The ray (= Son) that shone forth from him (= Father) is capable of knowing him (= Father); the light (= Father) that begot knows him (= Son)”. 149 equal in essence (ituta)…whose nature (kyana) is commensurate: cp Sermo de Domino Nostro I “The only-begotten took of the Essence”; {298} Aphrahat Dem. XXIII (PS II, 100, 18–19). The anti-Arian phraseology is typical of Ephrem; for the terminology, compare E. BECK, Theologie, p. 1ff, 13ff, and Reden, p. 1ff, 4ff. who is near to him, yet far from him: for “far-near” in a different context, cp Eph 2:13; the paradox is frequently used by Ephrem of Christ, e.g. H. Virg. XXXVI.9.3 “(Christ is) far and yet near, and hidden in his very manifestation”; S. Fid. II.711–2 “his nearness is distant, his distance near”; H. Nisib. XXI.13.5 “blessed is he who is both near and far”; L.6.2. mingled (ḥliṭ) with him, yet distinct from him: identical wording in S. Fid. I.156; II.593 (cp 599–600 etc); cf also H. Fid. XXXII.16 “each is mingled with the other, yet each is distinct”; XL.2.5–6 “The second (= Christ) is blended with him (= FaCf also 2(4) Esd 7:35 (and perhaps Isa 59:12). The concept of personified virtues and vices is also found in Iranian texts; cp J. DUCHESNE-GUILLEMIN, La religion de I’Iran ancien (Paris, 1962), p. 332–3. 146 See in general for Christological titles in early Syriac writers R. MURRAY, Symbols of Church and Kingdom (Cambridge, 1975), esp. pp. 354–63. 147 Based on 2 Tim 4:8 (P dayyana ke’na); cp Ps 7:11 and 2 Macc 12:6 dayyana d-qušta. 148 Cf also A. Thomas §§ 10, 50; Aphrahat, Dem. X, (PS I, 464). 149 My understanding of this passage differs from that of BECK, in his Theologie, p. 52. 145

196

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

ther), yet distinct from him; the third (= Holy Spirit) is mingled, yet distinct, blended and mingled”. at his right hand: cp S. Fid. II.594–8, in a similar context. not as an alien: no doubt intended as anti-Marcionite. Cf H. Nativ. XVII.17.4–5 “Christ the Son of the Lord of all is not alien from the Lord of all”. gate…way…lamb: the same sequence is found in H. Fid. LXII. 3.1–3 “Our Lord is figured as the “way” that has led us to his Father; he is figured too as the “gate”, which has brought us into the kingdom; they have also figured him as the “lamb” who was slain as a propitiation for us”. 150 way of truth (šrara): the related phrase ‘urḥa d-qušta occurs in H. Fid. XII.3; cp H. Azym. III.18.1. propitiatory lamb: cf H. Fid. LXII.3.3 (quoted above); H. Nativ. III.15.1 “blessed is the shepherd who became a lamb to propitiate for us”. purificatory sacrifice: cf H. Virg. XXXI.5.2 “sanctifying sacrifice”. The following phrases are rather similar to the wording of this hymn. the priest who removes guilt: cf H. Parad. IV.3.5 “the priest who purifies all”. the purifying sprinkling: the phrase occurs in H. Virg. XXXI.4.1. gives feeling to dust…earth: cf H. Fid. L.5.1–3 “Who will not bless the Good one who gave a soul to dust to give it feeling, and gave to earth reason and mind”. renewing the minds of all generations: cf perhaps H. Azym. XVIII.9.1 “renewing the people”. adorner: for the noun (rare, according to the lexica, and not figuring {299} in BROCKELMANN), cf H. Ieiun. IV.6.1; H. Nisib. XVI.7. 1; Sermo de Domino Nostro V (BECK p. 4 = LAMY I, 157). who gives names to all: similarly H. Eccl. XLVII.10.1–2. architect of the mountains: for Christ as “architect” cf H. Nativ. III.15.6; H. Iul. IV.22.1; H. Nisib. XLVIII.10.5 “architect of all”; Sermo de Domino Nostro X, LII “architect of created things”. who causes trees to germinate (mšawwḥana): the word is recorded in PAYNE SMITH only from Moshe bar Kepha’s Hexaemeron. ? (mkṭnn’): the root is not recorded in the lexica; since the initial combination of consonants (k + ṭ) is not found outside foreign words, the text may be corrupt, mṭknn’ “deviser” seems improbable; possibly mṭ‘nn’ “loader” (i.e. with fruit), though this form is only attested in the lexica from Neo-Syriac. tastes…colours: cp perhaps S. Fid. I.248. measured the heavens…: built up from phrases in Isa 40:12–13; cp Aphrahat Dem. XXIII (PS II, 121). Ephrem provides a similar farcing of a biblical quotation in Sermo de Domino Nostro XX (of Luke 7:44). 7 God of God: cp Sermo de Domino Nostro VIII “…God sent from Godhead”; LAMY I, 349 “God who is from God” (likewise Afrahat Dem. XVII, 2 (PS I, 788).

150

Cp Aphrahat, Dem XVII,II (PS I, 813; cp. 788).

15. EPHREM’S LETTER TO PUBLIUS

197

second essential light: for Christ as “light”, see especially H. Fid. LXXI.20; and for the Father as “first” and Christ as “second”, cf H. Fid. XXIII.13; S. Fid. IV.173–4. The combination of Christ as “light” and “second” is found in H. Fid. XL.l, where the Father is compared to the sun, the Son to its light, and the Spirit to its warmth (likewise H. Fid. LXXIII), and the “light” is described as “second”. Compare “light from light”, a phrase found in A. John (ed. WRIGHT) p. 7,4, and Aphrahat Dem. XVII,2 (PS I, 788). treasury of all riches: cp especially H. Virg. XXXI.7.1 “enriching treasury”; also Sermo de Domino Nostro IX “He made his body a treasury for his riches”. Ephrem often speaks of Christ’s Incarnation as “enriching” the poverty of mankind (based on 2 Cor 8:9), e.g. H. Azym. I.2.2; H. Fid. XII.13.4; H. Nativ. III.10.1; H. Nisib. XIV.23.1; H. Ieiun. X.1.8; in H. Fid. XXIV.3 Christ is called “the rich one who enriches all”. judge (dayyana) of the tribes: šarbata is probably to be taken in the technical sense of “tribes (of Israel)”, rather than just “peoples”; this is definitely the case in § 5, where we have the characteristic contrast between “tribes” (i.e. Jews) and “nations” (i.e. gentiles). For šarbata as “tribes (of Israel)” in Ephrem, cp Prose Refutations {300} II, p. 112, 113; the phrase itself finds its closest parallel, however, in Aphrahat Dem. XIV, 39 (PS I,684) “Christ is) da’en šarbata”. This phraseology is ultimately derived from Matt 19:28 = Luke 22:30, where, however, it is the twelve apostles who judge the “tribes of Israel”; in these passages P has šabṭe in both Matthew and Luke, while C S have šarban in Matt, but šabṭe in Luke: šarbata is well known as a reading here in early Syriac literature, e.g. H. Nativ. III. 10.5 (“the judge (= Christ) who seated his twelve for the judgement of the tribes”); Aphrahat Dem. V (PS I, 228), VI (PS I, 245), XIV (PS I, 684); Jacob of Serugh (ed. BEDJAN) I, p. 702,12. H. Nisib. XLII.9.2 and 8 knows both šabṭin 151 and šarbata. scales (kp’) that know no deceit: kp’ is ambiguous, for it could also mean “sheaf”, a name given to Christ in H. Nativ. III.15.5, based on Lev 23:10; the context here, however, points rather to “scales”. who gives life (mnaḥḥmana) to mortality: cp H. Nativ. III.9.6 “…that he might bring to life our mortality”; H. Nisib. XLIX.8.3 (cf XLVI.16.6 and LXV.15.2 where Christ is called mnahhem kul); Sermo de Domino Nostro XLII; A. Thom. (ed. WRIGHT) p. 281,77 (of Father, d-’ahayt mitutan); Jacob of Serugh Ep. 13 (ed. OLINDER), p. 56,72 mnaḥḥmana d-mite. breaks the sting of wickedness: cp. H. Nisib. XXXVII resp. “blessed is he who breaks the sting of Sheol by his cross”. “break” (not in 1 Cor 15:55) is also used in allusions to this passage in H. Nisib. XL.4.8–9 and Aphrahat Dem. VI (PS I, 268, 22); it is evidently a commonplace of early Syriac exegesis. Cf also Sahdona, II.12.21. captives: see introduction, above p. 266–267.

151

So H. Nisib. LIX.6.

198

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

dispeller of darkness: cf Paraenesis 50 (ASSEMANI VI, 515) “dispel the darkness from our minds”. The word qapola is rare (not listed in BROCKELMANN). Cf A. Thom. § 80. opens mouths that are closed: cp H. Nisib. LIX.16.2 “he who opened closed mouths”; LXIX.24.2; H. Resurr. IV.2.2; Sermo de Domino Nostro X; A. Thom. § 34 (ed. WRIGHT, p. 202,2) “you opened my mouth that was closed”. 8 whose names exceed…: the theme of the many names of Christ is a commonplace in Ephrem, e.g. H. Virg. IV.5 “Christ is single and unique, but he has many names that are mingled with all kinds of appellations referring to all the ways he helps”; H. Fid. XLIV. If; LIII.13.1; LXII; LXIII; H. Haer. LIII.13.1; cp also Aphrahat. Dem. XVII, 2 (PS I, 788). {301} kings of kings: cp H. Fid. LXXXII.6.5; H. Azym. V.14.1 etc. is spoken of in the prophets: cp perhaps H. Fid. LXXXVI.20.2–3, but closer is A. Thom. § 70 (ed. WRIGHT, p. 240,5) “and he was spoken of by the mouth of all the prophets”. sender of the Spirit: cp S. Fid. IV.179–80 “the Spirit did not send the Son, for he is the sender of it”. Based on John 14:26. whose aid is manifest: Ephrem frequently speaks of Christ’s “aid” to mankind, 152 e.g. H. Nativ. III.18.6; H. Azym.I.15.3; H. Nisib. XXXV.13.5–6; XLII.5.7 “(Jesus is) a sea of aids”; Sermo de Domino Nostro XXIV; outside Ephrem e.g. Jacob of Serugh (ed. BEDJAN) III, p. 460 “gaze on him who carries all kinds of aids”. whose will conforms (šalem) with the will of his begetter: the unity of the Father and Son in will is stressed by Ephrem, e.g. S. Fid. 11.601. Cp A. Thom. (ed. WRIGHT), p. 281, 7. sitting at the riqht hand of his beqetter: cp H. Nisib. XLIII.22.6; S. Fid. 1.79; IV.181 153 sheep…goats: cf H. Crucif. III.14.6–8. The imagery of the Matthean passage is popular in Manichaean literature too, e.g. Manichaean Psalms (ed. ALLBERRY) p. 170, 25–8. he thanks them: cf H. Haer. XXX.12. in the person of the sick: cp Aphrahat Dem. VI, 1 (PS I, 241) “let us visit our Lord in the person of the sick so that he may call us and we may stand at his right hand”. 9 shame: cp perhaps 2(4) Esd 7:87. him who is Good: ṭaba is a frequent title of Christ in Ephrem, e.g. H. Virg. XXV. 1.1; H. Fid. XXVII.7.8; H. Eccl. XXV.l (resp.); H. Haer. LI. 1.1, etc. silent and eloquent: see commentary to § 1. no questions: cp Narsai (ed. MINGANA) II, p. 14 : “There is no one who questions…; on men’s limbs are spread the garments of the soul’s works” For the significance of Christ as Βοηθός, Βοηθεία, see B. BAGATTI, The Church from the Circumcision (E.T. Jerusalem, 1971), p. 252ff. 153 Cf A. Thomas § 48. 152

15. EPHREM’S LETTER TO PUBLIUS

199

what he sees (lit. the sight): cp § 22; cp Narsai (ed. MINGANA) II, p. 14 “it is what is to be seen in them (ḥzata da-bhon) which separates them from their companions (i.e. the good from the bad)”. not that there really is a right and left: compare H. Parad. XI.4–8, where Ephrem is careful to explain that the terms used to describe Paradise are purely metaphorical. {302} scales: cf Serm. I.ii.1565f “scales of justice”. 154 10 smooth mirror: see commentary to § 1. are conceived within it: the same metaphor is found in H. Eccl. XXIX. 10 “the mirror conceives the image of everything that encounters it”; cp also Jacob of Serugh (ed. BEDJAN) III, p. 335, 6 and 336, 4. reprove (lmgnyw): I am most grateful to Bernard Outtier for pointing out that, instead of my original reading lmgḥw, ‘to ridicule’, and dmgḥ’, ‘mocks’, it would be much preferable to read lmgnyw and dmgny’. 11 we too: this hardly implies that the writer was converted from paganism, 155 simply that he underwent a spiritual awakening (this may refer to his baptism); cf § 14. our feet (rglyn): as Bernard Outtier has indicated to me, rglyn (rather than my earlier reading rllyn) is certainly what the scribe intended. groping: probably a reminiscence of Deut 28:29 or Isa 59:10, although a different word for “blind” is used in the Peshitta; cp Aphrahat, Dem. XXIII (PS II, 124). awoken out of our sleep: “sleeping” and “waking” are popular images in early Syriac writers. Cf Serm. I.ii. 1855 “instead of sleep, wakefulness”; Aphrahat, Dem. VII (PS I, 321), XIV (PS I, 720); A. Thom. 109f (Hymn of the Soul). Cf Rom. 13:11. 12 bridal chamber (gnuna): this motif is very common in Ephrem 156 and in early Syriac literature in general; see also introduction, above p. 267–268. not possessing works: cf § 15. In the Commentary on the Diatessaron Ephrem also takes the oil as good works (XVIII.19). robe of light: cp H. Parad. VII.5.1 and 24.5 “a crown, reputation and glory, the robe and the bridechamber of light”. The “robe of light” is a variant to the more common “robe of glory” (e.g. H. Eccl. XXVI.4) lost by Adam and Eve at the expulsion from paradise, and regained by Christians at baptism. For the Jewish origin of the imagery, see my Aspects of Greek Words in Syriac (on στολή), in AAW Gött. 96 (1975). {303} 13 oil: no doubt there is a double entendre here, and the reference is both to the oil of the parable in Matthew 25 (described as “of good works” in § 15, § 16), and the baptismal oil. Cf Aswana, in RAḤMANI, Studia Syriaca IV, p. 96*: massata d-qušta. If that were the case the Letter could not be Ephrem’s, for, although the Life makes him the son of a pagan priest, from his own works it is clear that both his parents were Christian. 156 Based on the parable of Matt 25:1ff; e.g. H. Virg. V.10; II. H. Fid. XI.18 etc. 154 155

200

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

gate: Matt 25:10, but the same word is used in Luke 13:25, and so provides the transition to the actual quotation of Luke 13:26 that follows; see further the introduction, above p. 269. 15 oil of excellent works: similarly § 16; see commentary on § 13. betrothed to him: so of the virgins in Matthew 25 lf in H. Virg. V.10.2; likewise Aphrahat, Dem. VI (PS I, 269). 16 reputation of virginity: on a similar vein, cp Serm. I.ii. 1227–8 “continence is rejected if it is mixed with impurity”. The same idea is found in Narsai (ed. MINGANA) II, p. 153. womb of his ear: the same phrase occurs in H. Eccl. XLIX.7 and S. Fid. I.197. 17 imprint (ṭb‘k; ms ṭwb‘k): the manuscript is awkward (i.e. “sub-mersion, deep sleep”; cf H. Nisib. LXV.9.1; Prose Refutations I.155, 47), though perhaps it is meant as a parallel to nawmta, i.e. “be fearful of your deep sleep”. An easy correction is to read ṭb‘k, i.e. “imprint (of baptism)”; cp especially H. Fid. XII.2.2 (v.l.), also in a judgement context. midst (lit. womb) of the garden of Eden: cp H. Parad. X.1.4–; XV. 9.1 “womb (= midst) of the trees (of Eden)”. dragons they trampled: suggested by Ps 91:13, where, however, the context is eschatological, while this simply represents a return to pre-Fall conditions. bottom of the depths: cp perhaps H. Nisib. XXXVI.7.5 (of Jonah). 18 where are…? : cf § 19; cf LAMY II, 325 for a similar list, and in later writers Isaac of Antioch (ed. BEDJAN) p. 72–3; Jacob of Serugh (ed. BEDJAN) I, p. 415; Ephrem Graecus (ASSEMANI III, 278, 401–2). ten generations: this has become almost a technical term, cf Aphrahat Dem. XXIII (PS II, 13); it is also found in Jewish sources, e.g. Pirqe Abhoth V.3. Compare also, for the general context, Aphrahat Dem. XXII, 10 (PS I, 1012) “who of the former generations has been left on this earth?”. Adam to Noah: cf S. Fid. III.132. washed away: the same word is used in this context in A. John (ed. WRIGHT), p. 16,5. flood (ṭawpana) of fire: used with reference to Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19:28) this phrase is very rare, and the closest parallel is to be found in Ephrem’s Comm. Gen. XVI.8 (mamola d-nura “deluge of fire”; Jewish sources speak of mabbul shel ’esh “flood of fire” in {304} connection with this event (B. T. Sanhedrin 108b). Compare also the “flood of wind”, used in connection with the destruction of idols in the days of Nahor, in the Cave of Treasures (ed. BEZOLD, p. 136). The general idea behind the present passage is also found in H. Nisib. XXXV.7. Normally the term “flood of fire” (mamola d-nura) is used in an eschatological context: thus Melito (ap. CURETON, Spicilegium Syriacum, p. 30*); Jacob of Serugh (ed. BEDJAN) I, p. 399; Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite (ed. WRIGHT) § 47; and in Greek, e.g. Ephrem Graecus (ASSEMANI III, 94) πὺρ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ καιόμενον καὶ διατρέχον κατακλύζειν τὴν οἰκουμένην. Origen,

15. EPHREM’S LETTER TO PUBLIUS

201

Sel. in Gen. (PG 12,105); Agathangelus §114 (ed. DE LAGARDE, p. 58) κατακλυσμὸς πυρός. 157 19 take yourself…: a similar exhortation to meditate on death is found in H. Nisib. LXXVII.l “let us see in the dead that our life is but a dream”. kings…crowns: cp H. Nisib. LXXIV.10; LXXVI.21; LAMY II, 315, 325, 327; Aphrahat, Dem. XXI, 6 (PS I, 1000). crowns buried…: compare a similar list in LAMY II, 315. worms…vermin: cp § 20; H. Nisib. LXXVI.19. generals: cp LAMY II, 315. grass of the roof: cp LAMY II, 317. 20 a garment of spider’s web: cp Serm. I.iv.54 “the grave clothes him in a spider’s web”; LAMY II, 329. bridegrooms snatched away: cp H. Nisib. LXXV.14 “the day when bridegrooms and brides are separated”. 21 the sight of their eyes: cp Narsai (ed. MINGANA) II, p. 21 “sinners’ vision runs to the height above: at this sight the side of the wicked suffers greatly”. paradise: compare the descriptions, again making use of Luke 16, in H. Parad. I.12; VII. 29. tables of the kingdom: probably based on Luke 22:30 (P “table of the kingdom”, but C S “my table in the kingdom”); cp H. Parad. II.5.6; VII.24.6. wreath: for songs as a “wreath”, compare H. Crucif. VII. 12.4. to either side: cp H. Parad. VII.29.1 “the two sides” (in a similar context). the more condemned: similar idea (again with the background of the parable of Dives and Lazarus) in H. Parad. I.17.3. 22 Maybe…: perhaps imitated by Narsai (ed. MINGANA) II, P. 21 “Maybe (ṭak) it is within themselves that they learn the might of the just judge”. {305} Gehenna: it is interesting that at the Second Council of Ephesus one of the accusations against Ibas was that he had, in conversation with the senator Theodotos, denied the literal reality of Gehenna (ed. PERRY, p. 66 = ET p. 104). 158 torments of contrition: cf Narsai (ed. MINGANA) II, p. 8 “their mind (hawna) within themselves adds torments to their (physical) torments” (cp also p. 15). 23 inner intelligence: cp Jacob of Serugh, (ed. BEDJAN) I, p. 708: “there is one who speaks, while everyone is silent and trembling, and it is his (each man’s?) understanding (tar‘iteh) that judges everyone for his deeds”. no force: cp perhaps H. Nisib. XVI.6, where the mirror is said to use no compulsion. 24 bond of debt: the phrase (from Col 2:14) is very common in Ephrem and the connection with “tears” (as here) occurs in H. Virg. XIII.9.7 “blessed is he who has Cp C-M. EDSMAN, La baptême de feu (Uppsala, 1940), p. 102, 168 etc. Compare the Stoic view, quoted by Theophilus, Ad Autolycum II, θεὸν εἷναι μόνον φασὶν τὴν ἑκάστου συνείδησιν. 157 158

202

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

wiped out his bond of debt with the tears of his eyes”; likewise in two memre of uncertain authenticity: Serm. I.vii.80; viii.257f (both of the “harlot” of Luke 7:36f). 25 The final paragraph rounds off the Letter, harking back to the first paragraph in much the same way that the Sermode Domino Nostro opens and closes with the theme of the ’awwane, “stages”, of the Incarnation. We have here the elements of socalled “ring-composition”. from the resurrection…: as usual in early Syriac writers a gap in time is envisaged between resurrection and judgement. 159 APPENDIX: Index of Greek words. γάρ 2, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 19. ξένος 8. εὐαγγέλιον 2, 10. σειρά 19. ζεῦγος (zwwg‘) 15. στολή 12, 15, 20. κατήγωρ (verb) 5, 22. σχῆμα 23. λαμπάς 12, 16. τάχα 14, 24. νόμος 23. τήγανον (verb) 4.

I have benefitted from discussion, on various points in connection with the Letter, with Frau Dr Margot Schmidt, the Reverend Dr R. Murray S. J., Professor J.B. Schneewind and Mr Jost Blum. 159

16

THE POETIC ARTISTRY OF ST EPHREM: AN ANALYSIS OF H. AZYM. III. * St Ephrem as a poet has met with a mixed reception among English-speaking scholars. The verdict of F.C. Burkitt was hardly flattering: Ephrem is extraordinarily prolix, he repeats himself again and again, and for all the immense mass of material there seems very little to take hold of… (his popularity) shows a lamentable standard of public taste. 1

Writing over half a century later, J.B. Segal, in his fine book on Edessa, took an equally poor view of Ephrem’s poetic talent: (Ephrem’s) work, it must be confessed, shows little profundity or originality of thought, and his metaphors are laboured. His poems are turgid, humourless and repetitive. 2

Thanks to the great authority that these two Syriac scholars enjoy, this negative judgement would appear to have become the standard one in Britain among those who claim to have sampled his work. Thus, in a review of R. Murray’s Symbols of Church and Kingdom, L.W. Barnard takes issue with that author’s very different assessment (see below), and speaks deprecatingly of ‘wading’ through Ephrem’s works. 3 Do we have here a blind spot in the poetic taste and sensibility of the Englishspeaking world – the reverse, as it were, of Burkitt’s coin? How is it that the ‘Harp of the Spirit’, as St Ephrem is called in Syriac tradition, {22} has come to be so little appreciated, indeed actually denigrated? Several factors, I suspect, have contributed to this sad state of affairs. First, perhaps, comes the lack until recently of a good edition of St Ephrem’s works; here Burkitt was considerably more justified when he pronounced the six volume Roman edition of P. Mobarak and S.E. Assemani to be Originally published in Parole de l’Orient 6–7 (1975/5), 21–28. Early Eastern Christianity (London, 1904), pp. 96, 99. 2 Edessa, the Blessed City (Oxford, 1970), p. 89. 3 Theology LXXVIII, no. 660 (June 1975), p. 330. *

1

203

204

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

“one of the most confusing and misleading works ever published’’. 4 Burkitt himself would indeed have had available Bickell’s edition of the Carmina Nisibena, but many an aspiring student of Syriac must have been put off by the unattractive Syriac fount used in that edition – and Burkitt, it should be remembered, was a skilled calligrapher in Syriac as well as in Greek and Latin scripts. It is also important to recall that scholars like Burkitt were trying to extract factual information from Ephrem’s poems about figures like Bardaisan and about the early history of the church in Nisibis and Edessa, and one suspects that frustration at failing to pin Ephrem down to precise statements on subjects such as these has clouded these scholars’ judgement when they came to speak of Ephrem as a poet in his own right. Add to this the fact that St Ephrem has been extremely ill-served by English translations, despite the good start provided by J.B. Morris’ work, published in 1847. 5 Many of the renderings in the only other standard collection of English translations of Ephrem, which appeared in 1898, 6 are so turgid that one is often forced to go back to the Syriac original in order to discover the real meaning. English sadly lacks anything like the superb French translation by R. Lavenant of the Paradise Hymns. There are, happily, indications that the situation may be improving, and R. Murray’s Symbols of Church and Kingdom, 7 already mentioned, provides a rich selection of extracts in a very readable English translation. There have been a few exceptions to this lack of appreciation in the Englishspeaking world of a writer whom tradition has always ranked {23} as a major poet. Fr. R. Murray, in an article on St Ephrem in the Catholic Dictionary of Theology, 8 described him as “the greatest poet of the patristic age and, perhaps, the only theologian-poet to rank beside Dante”; and more recently Fr. S. Tugwell was prepared to call St Ephrem “one of the great religious poets of the world”. 9 These latter assessments are ones with which I myself would readily concur, simply adding that, in my own experience, St Ephrem needs to be read on his own terms, in order for the richness of his poetic genius to makes itself apparent to the best advantage. Ephrem’s skill as a literary artist has often been commented on, but I know of no study that investigates this artistry in any detail. It seems fitting then, to offer as a small tribute to a fellow lover of St Ephrem’s poetry whohas rendered such great services to Syriac literature as editor of the ’Patrologia Orientalis and by his other works, the following analysis of the intricate structure of one of St Ephrem’s hymns. St Ephraim's Quotations from the Gospel (Texts and Studies VII.2: Cambridge, 1901), p. 4. Select Works of St Ephrem (Oxford, 1847). 6 Ed. J, GWYNN, Selections… from the Hymns and Homilies of Ephraim the Syrian (A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ser. 2, vol. 13; 1898). 7 Symbols of Church and Kingdom: A Study in Early Syriac Tradition (Cambridge, 1975). 8 Ed. J.H. Crehan (London, 1967), II, pp. 220–3. 9 Prayer (Dublin, 1974), I, p. 138. 4 5

16. THE POETIC ARTISTRY OF ST EPHREM: AN ANALYSIS OF H. AZYM. III 205 On the surface H. de Azymis III 10 provides a straightforward set of typological comparisons between the Jewish Passover lamb and the True Passover Lamb of the Christians. A closer examination of the poem, however, shows that, while the old Passover lamb simply marks the single Jewish exodus from Egypt, the new Paschal Lamb effects a double exodus – of the Gentiles from Error, and of the Dead from Sheol. Further analysis of the poem’s composition will reveal that this proportion, 1:2 (old: new), is also brought out in the very structure of the poem, thus providing a truly astonishing fusion of form with content. Before looking in detail at the intricacies of this elaborate structure, however, it will be best to offer, for the sake of convenience, a translation of the poem.

H. DE AZYMIS III

1. In Egypt the Passover lamb was slain, in Sion the True Lamb slaughtered. 2. My brothers, let us consider the two lambs, let us see where they bear resemblance and where they differ. 3. Let us weigh and compare their achievements – of the lamb that was the symbol, and of the Lamb that is the Truth. 4. Let us look upon the symbol as a shadow, let us look upon the Truth as the fulfilment. 5. Listen to the simple symbols that concern that Passover, and to the double achievements of this our Passover. 6. With the Passover lamb there took place for the Jewish people and exodus from Egypt, and not an entry. 7. So with the True Lamb there took place for the Peoples an exodus from Error, and not an entry. 8. With the Living Lamb there was a further exodus, too, for the dead from Sheol, as from Egypt; 9. For in Egypt two symbols are depicted, since it reflects both Sheol and Error. 10. With the Passover lamb, Egypt’s greed learnt to give back, against its wont; 11. With the Living Lamb, Sheol’s hunger disgorged back the dead, against its nature. 12. With the True Lamb, greedy Error rejected and cast up the Peoples who were saved. 13. With that Passover lamb, Pharoah returned the Jewish people whom, like Death, he had held back; 14. With the Living Lamb, Death has returned the just, who left their graves; [Mt 27:52] 15. With the True Lamb, Satan gave up the Peoples whom, like Pharoah, he had held back. 16. In Pharoah two types were depicted: he was the pointer to both Death and Satan. 10

Ed. E. BECK, C.S.C.O. 248, Scriptores Syri 108.

206

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

17. With the Passover lamb, Egypt was breached and a path stretched out before the Hebrews. 18. With the True Lamb, Satan, having fenced off all paths, left free the path that leads to Truth. {25} 19. That True Lamb has trodden out, with the cry which he uttered, [Mt 27:50] the path from the grave for those who lie buried.

Refrain: Praise to the Son, the Lord of symbols, who fulfilled every symbol at his Ressurection. A preliminary examination of the poem shows that it falls naturally into a number of different sections. stanzas 1–4 5 6–8

introductory. old = single; new = double. Jewish exodus from Egypt foreshadows exodus of gentiles from Error and of dead from Sheol, 9 Egypt represents Sheol and Error. 10–12 As Egypt disgorged the Jews, so does Sheol the dead, and Error the gentiles. 13–15 As Pharoah returns the Jews, so does Death the just, and Satan the gentiles. 16 Pharoah represents Death and Satan. 17–19 The breaching of Egypt foreshadows the breaching of Satan and the grave.

Stanza 5 sets the theme for the whole poem: there is no simple one-to-one correspondence between the Passover lamb and the True Lamb – rather, the True Lamb doubles the achievements of his type. This proportion 1:2, is then both illustrated in the ensuing stanzas and at the same time actually built in to the very structure of the rest of the poem. We now get variations on the theme: Egypt/Pharoah:

Error/Satan + Sheol/death.

The True Lamb not only provides an exodus, in time and space, of the gentile ‘peoples’ from error, to balance the exodus of the Jewish ‘people’ under the type of the Passover lamb, but he also effects a further exodus, on a completely different plane, outside of time and space, of the dead from Sheol. This is entirely characteristic of early eastern christianity, where the ‘Descent’ motif plays such a prominent part, and perhaps it is worth digressing for a moment on the prominence of this theme, since it {26} has either proved distasteful or embarrassing to many modern western scholars because of its obvious ‘mythological’ overtones. Actually the Descent motif plays a vital role in early Syriac writers as a means of expressing their rich understanding of the full effects of the Incarnation: whereas Christ’s Incarnation on earth is seen as having application in historical time and space – from a particular point in history onwards, the Descent theme complements this by demonstrating the effects

16. THE POETIC ARTISTRY OF ST EPHREM: AN ANALYSIS OF H. AZYM. III 207 of the Incarnation in sacred time and space, unbounded by the limitations of historical time. 11 For Ephrem, then, the theme of the double exodus effected by the True Lamb, far from being a mere literary device, is basic to the entire Christian message. In order to demonstrate how this pattern of 1:2 is woven with delicate artistry into the remainder of the poem, from stanza 6 onwards, it will be convenient to use the following symbols: Passover Lamb Egypt = A Pharoah = A’

Passover lamb = X

True Lamb Error = B Satan = B’

+ +

True Lamb = Y Living Lamb = Z

Shed = C Death = C’ Grave = C”

In the following table these symbols are employed wherever their corresponding terms occur. 1 2 3 4

5

6 7 8

9

10 11 12

Resemblance, Comparison of Achievements, Differences (shadow: fulfilment) {27}

Old = single, New = double Jewish Exodus from Egypt Gentile Exodus from Error Exodus of Dead from Sheol Egypt is symbol for Sheol and Error Egypt hands back the Jews Sheol disgorges the Dead Error casts up the Gentiles

13 Pharoah returns the Jews 14 Death returns the Just 15 Satan returns the Gentiles Pharoah is symbol for Death and Satan 17 Egypt breached 18 Satan foiled 19 Grave emptied

16

A X B Y C Z A: G + B A X C Z B Y

A’ X C’ Z B’ Y A’ C’ + B’ A X B’ Y C’ Z

Stanza 5 provides the model 1:2, and this is reflected in the structure of the poem in three different ways, on various levels: The vitally important distinction between sacred and historical time, to be found in the religious thinking of every faith, is well brought out in the various works of M. ELIADE. 11

208

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD (1) Stanzas 9 and 16 provide straightforward illustrations of this model. (2) Four groups of three stanzas each follow the pattern: 6:7 + 8 13: 14 + 15 10: 11 + 12 17: 18 + 19 (3) On a larger scale we have the same proportion in the following balance: 6–8: 10–12 + 13–15.

(Stanzas 9 and 16 provide the summaries and the boundary for 10–12 and 13–15, the former looking forward, the latter backward). The symmetry of the poem is also extremely neat, as can readily be seen at a glance from the symbols in the table. Whereas 6–8 balances 10–12 and 13–15 in the proportion 1:2 ((3) above), 6–8 is also provided with a symmetrical balance at the end, 17–19, where we get the order {28} ABC, XYZ exactly corresponding, whereas in the intervening section, 9–16, we have throughout the order ACB, XZY. In the final triad, stanzas 17–19, Ephrem’s readers would no doubt have caught his allusions – by way of choice of vocabulary – to the ‘breaching’ 12 of the side of Christ with the lance (John 19:34), and the fencing off’ 13 of Paradise by means of the flaming sword (Gen. 3:24) – a favourite typological contrast of Ephrem’s, 14 to which the present passage provides the counterpart by way of allusion: the breached side of Christ the True Lamb effects the breach of Egypt, and so removes the fence from the path to Truth, hitherto fenced off by the cherubic sword as a result of Satan’s temptation of Adam and Eve. ***

In this short article I have confined myself to structure, since the situation is so very clear-cut here, and cannot possibly be the result of mere chance. It would no doubt be possible to point to various other aspects of Ephrem’s artistic skill in this poem, such as his use of assonance, but since the significance of his use of this is not so obvious, this would require separate study within a wider context. Enough, however, has been said to demonstrate something of Ephrem’s superb technical skill and literary artistry in this short and deceptively simple poem.

Although this is not the word used in any of the Syriac Gospel versions, Ephrem himself uses it elsewhere with reference to the side of Christ and John 19:34; thus Comm. Diat. XXI.10 (dapna tri‘at b-rumha), H. Nativ. VIII.4.4; cp H. Eccles. XLV.3.1. 13 This word does not occur in the Genesis narrative. But it is often introduced into the present typological context by Ephrem and other early Syriac poets on the basis of Ephesians 2:4, “He is our peace… who has broken down the fence (da-šra syaga) that stood between”. 14 Ephrem often uses the same word for both weapons. For their typological correspondance in Ephrem, see R. MURRAY, “The lance which re-opened Paradise”, O.C.P. XXXIX (1973), pp. 224–34, 491. 12

17 ST EPHREM ON CHRIST AS LIGHT IN MARY AND IN THE JORDAN (H. DE ECCLESIA 36) * St Ephrem has justly been described as ‘one of the great religious poets of the world’, 1 and this makes it all the more regrettable that so little of his work is available in English translation. The situation has indeed now slightly improved, thanks to the appearance of Fr Robert Murray’s excellent Symbols of Church and Kingdom, where numerous extracts from Ephrem (and other early Syriac writers) are to be found. It is difficult to find a suitable title for the following hymn, which consists in a meditation on the theme of Christ as Light conveyed by Mary to the world, 2 and by the Jordan (i.e. baptism) to individual Christians, and on the transforming effect this has. As often with St Ephrem, both the thought and the structure of the poem are complex, and accordingly I have appended a short commentary to help bring out some of the richness that lies behind this complexity. The hymn comes from a collection of poems that goes under the name Hymni de Ecclesia. The titles of Ephrem’s various hymn collections are rarely descriptive of the entire contents of any given collection, and normally the title refers only to a small group of hymns within a particular collection; thus the reader should not be surprised to find that the theme of the present hymn has little or nothing to do with the Church. Parts of the collection de Ecclesia were published in the massive Roman edition of 1732–43, but it was only in 1960 that the complete collection, consisting of fifty-two hymns, became available in Dom Edmund Beck’s edition in the Louvain Corpus of Oriental Christian writers. 3 1.

When it is associated with a source of light an eye becomes clear,

Originally published in Eastern Churches Review 7 (1976), 137–44. Thus S. Tugwell, OP, Prayer (Dublin 1974), vol. ii, p. 147. 2 Beck has pointed out the importance of this hymn for an understanding of the role of Mary in Ephrem’s thought; see his ‘Die Mariologie der echten Schriften Ephräms’, Oriens Christianus xl (1956), pp. 22–39. 3 E. Beck, Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Ecclesia (=Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 198 [text] and 199 [German translation]). *

1

209

210

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

it shines with the light that provisions it, it gleams with its brightness, it becomes glorious with its splendour, adorned by its beauty. Refrain: Blessed is the Creator of light. As though on an eye the Light settled in Mary, It polished her mind, made bright her thought and pure her understanding, causing her virginity to shine.

The river in which he was baptized conceived him again symbolically; the moist womb of the water conceived him in purity, bore him in chastity, made him ascend in glory.

{138}

In the pure womb of the river you should recognize the daughter of man, who conceived having known no man, who gave birth without intercourse, who brought up, through a gift, the Lord of that gift. As the Daystar in the river, the Bright One in the tomb, he shone forth on the mountain top and gave brightness too in the womb; he dazzled as he went up from the river, gave illumination at his ascension.

The brightness which Moses put on was wrapped on him from without, whereas the river in which Christ was baptized put on Light from within, and so did Mary’s body, in which he resided, gleam from within. Just as Moses gleamed with the divine glory because he saw the splendour briefly, how much more should the body wherein Christ resided gleam,

17. ST EPHREM ON CHRIST AS LIGHT IN MARY AND IN THE JORDAN

8.

9.

and the river where he was baptized?

The brightness that the stammering Moses put on in the wilderness did not allow the darkness to darken the inside of his dwelling, for the light from his face served as a sun that went before his feet –

like the heavenly beings who need no other source of light for their eyes to see, for their pupils flow with light, and they are clothed in rays of glory.

{139}

10. For if the sun chases out darkness without using light apart from its own -for the sun needs no luminary for light, seeing it is the source of its own rays – 11. so too at the resurrection the righteous are light, for their clothing is splendour, their garment brightness: they become their own light, providing it themselves.

12. Save me, Lord, on that day when the wicked put on the garment of all their sins, clothing full of stains, whence spring for them darkness and torment, 13. just as from the body in times of sickness there spring up bitter pains and fever, as fetters for its wrongdoing and a rod to chastise it.

14. O Good One, who prepared for us the sun by day and by night the moon with the candelabra of the stars,

211

212

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD may your glorious comfort reach me through your grace.

15. Give thanks to the Creator of the light wherein is depicted the heavenly Light; give praise to the Maker of the light that is a symbol of the Light of our Saviour! {140}

STRUCTURE

As a poet Ephrem is an artist of consummate skill. While his plays on words and sounds cannot be conveyed in translation, some of the intricacies of the structure of this hymn can be indicated. In some poems, such as hymn 3 de Azymis, the very structure of the poem is intimately tied up with the content, 4 while in others no such underlying purpose is apparent. The present poem falls into three sections, stanzas 1–5, 6–11, and 12–15. With the exception of stanza 5, which sums up stanzas 1–4 and serves as a bridge between the first and the second section, the stanzas all go in pairs as far as the thought is concerned, but each pair is linked by some common theme to the next; thus, for example, stanzas 8 and 9 are linked to 10 and 11 by the ‘sun’, 10 and 11 are linked to 12 and 13 by the idea of the final resurrection.

COMMENTARY (a) Stanzas 1–5 As has just been pointed out, the thought of the poem progresses in pairs of stanzas, with stanza 5 standing apart, and summing up the first section of the poem. In stanzas 1 and 2 we have the pattern: eye: light

Mary: Christ the Light.

In both cases the advent of the light /Light makes the recipient radiant. 5 In stanzas 3 and 4 the terms of reference shift, and we are now presented with the schema: Jordan: Christ Mary: Christ.

I have attempted an analysis of this poem in chapter 16, above. The same theme features in the next hymn of the collection, no. 37; there Ephrem quaintly goes on to describe Mary as the world’s right eye and Eve as its left-and blind-eye. (Other aspects of the Mary: Eve typology in Ephrem can be found in R. Murray, SJ, ‘Mary, the Second Eve in the early Syriac Fathers’, ECR iii, 4 (1971), pp. 372–84.) 4 5

17. ST EPHREM ON CHRIST AS LIGHT IN MARY AND IN THE JORDAN

213

These two stanzas are perhaps the most important of the entire poem, and the rich web of varied connotations and resonances requires a little unravelling. In the early Syrian Church Christ’s presence in the Jordan was seen as proleptically sanctifying all baptismal water, and the consecration of the water at each baptism was understood as a re-enactment, effected this time by the Spirit of Christ, of Christ’s own descent into, and consecration of, the Jordan waters. 6 In stanza 3 Ephrem sees the whole of Christ’s incarnate life, from his conception and nativity to the ascension, gathered up all together in his baptism. In stanza 4 Ephrem moves on to see the Jordan’s womb and Mary’s womb as effectively identical, the implication being that, since Christ’s presence in the Jordan {141} sanctifies baptismal water, his presence in Mary’s womb serves as her own baptism. That this is not a purely fanciful interpretation of Ephrem’s intentions is made quite clear by other passages where Ephrem makes the same point explicitly; thus in hymn 16 of the collection de Nativitate he writes: O Christ, you have given birth to your own mother in the second birth that comes from water (stanza 9),

and a little later on Mary herself speaks and says:

The Son of the Most High came and dwelt in me, and I became his mother. As I gave birth to him - his second birth, so too he gave birth to me a second time. He put on his mother’s robe -his body; I put on his glory (stanza 11).

Ephrem sees this series of births, of Christ and Mary, in a chiastic relationship, best expressed diagrammatically: Christ’s first birth (from the Father) Mary’s natural birth

Christ’s second birth (from Mary) Mary’s second birth (baptism).

The link between these two sets of double births is Christ’s own baptism in the womb of the Jordan, for this symbolically looks back to his ‘second’ birth in Mary’s womb and effectively points forward to the spiritual rebirth of all Christians in baptism, in Mary’s special case, anticipated in time. Ephrem’s bold reversal of our usual categories of time may strike some modern readers as far-fetched, but in fact he is making use of an insight about the nature of time in religious thought that is of the utmost importance for any proper understanding of liturgical worship. Ephrem is aware here of the distinction between ‘horizontal’ time and ‘vertical’ or ‘sacred’, time. 7 Horizontal or linear time is time in the Cf. ‘The Epiklesis in the Antiochene Baptismal Ordines’, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 197 (1974), pp. 203–6. 7 A good exposition of this distinction can be found in the various writings of Mircea Eliade, e.g. Patterns in Comparative Religion (London/New York 1958) p. 391ff., where, of course, he is dealing primarily with non-Christian religious thought; comments on ‘historical 6

214

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

normal sense that we know it, consisting of a consecutive string of events, where one event is ‘before’ or ‘after’ another. Vertical or sacred time has, on the contrary, no ‘before’ or ‘after’: all events that are of equal significance from a religious point of view, or whose effect is achieved by a combination of events, come together on the ‘sacred time’ scale, even though these events may be far separated by ‘horizontal time’. With this distinction in mind we can now understand how Ephrem is able to see all the major moments of Christ’s incarnate life, separated from one another in linear time, all run together, as far as sacred time is concerned, in his baptism (stanza 3), while in stanza 4 these events in sacred time are seen as having run ‘back’ in linear time to the nativity. {142} How important this concept of sacred time is for a correct understanding of the real meaning of baptism and the eucharist need not be stressed here. Suffice it to say that Western Christianity might have been spared many of the tiresome controversies on these subjects had a proper awareness of this other dimension of time not been generally lost – only to be rediscovered this century by anthropologists studying so-called ‘primitive’ societies. As far as Ephrem is concerned, this concept of sacred time is constantly present in his mind, and his poetry cannot be properly understood apart from it. The various events in linear time that constitute the single salvificatory event in sacred time are all listed in stanza 5, which serves as the coping stone for the tightly packed edifice of stanzas 1–5. On points of detail in these stanzas we may note: Stanza 2: The imagery is taken from the polishing of a mirror (in antiquity made of bronze). Elsewhere Ephrem frequently speaks of the ‘mirror’ of the soul, which should reflect, if properly ‘polished’, the image of its Creator (Gen 1:26). 8 Stanza 3: The Jordan (and the baptismal font) as a ‘womb’ is characteristic of Syriac writers; a selection of references from liturgical and other texts can be found in ‘A new Syriac baptismal ordo attributed to Timothy of Alexandria’, Le Muséon Ixxxiii (1970), pp. 418–19. Stanza 4; The ‘gift’ will be that of the milk flowing in Mary’s breasts; in Mary two miracles are wrought according to Ephrem: she gives birth as a virgin, but her breasts provide milk as though she was an ordinary mother. Thus in hymn 11 of the collection de Nativitate we find: With you, O Christ, Mary underwent all that married women undergo: conception but without intercourse; her breasts filled with milk

time and liturgical time’ in Christianity can be found in his Myth and Reality (London 1964), pp. 168–70. 8 On this theme see E. Beck, ‘Das Bild von Spiegel bei Ephräm’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica xix (1953), pp. 1–24.

17. ST EPHREM ON CHRIST AS LIGHT IN MARY AND IN THE JORDAN

215

but against nature’s pattern: you made her, ‘the thirsty earth’ (Isa 53:2), all of a sudden into a fountain of milk! (stanza 4).

Possibly this idea underlies Odes of Solomon 35:6, but although the wording is very similar it does not seem likely that Ephrem knew the Odes directly. Stanza 5: The mountain top is probably that of the Ascension rather than the mountain of the Transfiguration (which plays little part in Ephrem’s poetry). In the penultimate line Ephrem no doubt has in mind the tradition, already known to Justin and found in some Old Latin manuscripts of the Gospels, that a bright light shone out at Christ’s baptism; Syriac tradition (including Ephrem) develops this and also speaks of fire {143} (i.e. as a consecrating element) there. Thus in hymn 10 of the collection de Fide 9 Ephrem writes: Fire and Spirit are in the womb of her who bore you, Fire and Spirit are in the river in which you were baptized, Fire and Spirit are in our baptism, and in the Bread and Cup is Fire and Holy Spirit (stanza 17).

In stanza 5 of our poem Ephrem deliberately transfers terminology, characteristic of one particular event, to other events in Christ’s incarnate life. (b) Stanzas 6–11 His basic theme having been stated, Ephrem now introduces analogies from both Scripture (Moses’ radiance, stanzas 6–8) and nature (the sun, stanzas 8ff.) – the two ‘witnesses’ that God has provided for man (for this theme in Ephrem see ‘World and Sacrament in the Writings of the Syrian Fathers’, Sobornost’, ser. 6, no. 10 [1974], p. 687). Moses’ radiance was exterior, whereas in the case of the two Light-bearers, Mary and the Jordan, the radiance comes from Christ dwelling in their very wombs (stanza 6); moreover in their case the effect of the Light’s presence was permanent, and not just temporary as was the case with Moses (stanza 7). The presence of this radiance serves as a sun for those who possess it: this was temporarily the case with Moses (stanza 8), it is permanently so with the angels (stanza 9). Just as the sun is the source of its own light (stanza 10), so at the final resurrection the righteous will be the source of their own light, because they have allowed Christ the Light to shine through themselves: they are truly people in whom Christ lives (Gal 2:20). On points of detail in stanzas 6–11: Stanza 6: cf. Exod 34:29ff. The metaphor of ‘putting on’ is a favourite one with early Syriac writers: Christ ‘puts on’ the body, Christians ‘put on’ the ‘robe of glory’ at baptism (cf. Sobornost’, ser. 6, no. 10 [1974], pp. 689–90). Stanza 8: ‘stammering’: cf. Exod 4:10. There is an English translation of the whole poem, by R. Murray, in ECR iii, 2 (1970), pp. 142–50. 9

216

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

(c) Stanzas 12–15 Mention of the final resurrection strikes a note of awe in Ephrem’s own mind, for whereas the righteous put on their robes of light, the wicked, among whom Ephrem numbers himself, will be clothed in their sins which will confront them then, an idea that Ephrem uses to good effect in his Letter to Publius on the subject of the last judgement 10 (Jewish antecedents to it are to be found in 4 Esd 7: 35, etc.). Stanza 13 goes {144} on to compare the effects of sins at the resurrection with the effects of illness in the human body (Ephrem probably has in mind here illnesses brought on by misuse of the body). The final two stanzas contain a prayer (stanza 14) and thanksgiving (stanza 15), a type of ending characteristic of many of Ephrem’s hymns. {145}

10

Text, translation and commentary in chapter 15, above.

18

A HYMN OF ST EPHREM ON THE EUCHARIST* St. Ephrem’s hymns, of which some five hundred survive, are the product of a life of profound and meditative reading of the Scriptures; this prolonged reading of the biblical text inspires into this theologian-poet a constant sense of wonder and love in response to the outflowing of God’s own love for his creation, and in particular for humanity despite its fallen state, a patient love manifested repeatedly in the course of salvation history as recounted in the Bible. As he reads the Scriptures with the luminous inner eye of faith, St. Ephrem is constantly amazed at the different ways in which divine love unobtrusively makes itself available for human beings to respond to, thus providing the means whereby the ‘robe of glory’, or ‘raiment of light’ which humanity lost through disobedience to God at the Fall, can be recovered. Ephrem sees the movement of God’s love operating in three main ways. Employing the imagery of clothing which is so characteristic of early Syriac Christianity, Ephrem first of all speaks of God ‘putting on names’ in the Old Testament: he there allows himself to be described in human terms, with metaphors drawn from human experience. Without this initiative on God’s part it would not be possible for the created human intellect {62} to attain to any knowledge of the creator at all. Ephrem explains this in the opening three stanzas of the thirty-first hymn of the large cycle of hymns entitled ‘On Faith’: Let us give thanks to God who clothed himself in the names of the body’s various parts: Scripture refers to his ‘ears’, to teach us that he listens to us; it speaks of his ‘eyes’, to show that he sees us. It was just the names of such things that he put on, and, although in his true Being there is no ‘wrath’ or ‘regret’,

*

Originally published in The Harp 1 (1987), 61–68.

217

218

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD yet he put on these names too, because of our weakness.

Refrain: Blessed is he who has appeared to our human race under so many metaphors. We should realize that, had he not put on the names of such things, it would not have been possible for him to speak with us humans: by means of what belongs to us did he draw close to us; he clothed himself in our language, so that he might clothe us in his mode of life. He asked for our form, and he put on this; and then, as a father with his children, he spoke with our childish state. It is our metaphors that he put on – though he did not literally do so; he then took them off – without actually doing so: when wearing them, he was at the same time stripped of them. He puts one on when it is beneficial, then strips it off in exchange for another; the fact that he strips off and puts on all sorts of metaphors {63} tells us that the metaphor does not apply to his true Being: because that Being is hidden, he has depicted it by means of what is visible.

Following this ‘incarnation into human language’, where God allows himself to be clothed with human words, then, in Ephrem’s words, God goes on to clothe himself in the human body, at the incarnation proper. ‘Glory to you,’ Ephrem exclaims in his prose Discourses on our Lord (section 9), ‘who clothed yourself in the body of mortal Adam, thereby making it a fountain of salvation (or, of life) for all mortals’. Then, finally and as a consequence of the incarnation, God makes himself available to humanity in the Mysteries, or Sacraments, of Baptism and the. Eucharist, for with their assistance humanity can respond to the movement of God’s love, and so, as a result of that response, become clothed in that luminous garment of glory which God had originally intended for humanity, had the Fall never taken place. The robe of glory, which is conferred in potential at baptism, is the pledge of the Paradise which will only be experienced fully at the end of time; meanwhile the church on earth should serve as an anticipation of the Kingdom, for here we are

18. A HYMN OF ST EPHREM ON THE EUCHARIST

219

offered Chirst’s Body, which now takes the place of the Tree of Life (Commentary on the Diatessaron 21:25). If at baptism the Christian puts on the robe of the Spirit, at the Eucharistic Mystery he or she receives the ‘Medicine of Life’: Our Lord baptized human kind with the Holy Spirit, he nourished it with the Medicine of Life. (Nisibene Hymns 46:8)

Of all the hymns where St. Ephrem meditates on the Mystery of the Eucharist, perhaps none is more important than the tenth in the hymn cycle on Faith, of which a new English translation is offered here. At the outset Ephrem acknowledges that any treatment that is to be worthy of the subject requires God’s initial inspiration (verses 1–2); like the Canaanite woman described in Matthew 15:21–28, Ephrem is eager to pick up even the scraps from Jesus’ table which were destined for the dogs (verse 3), {64} seeing that these will prove ample enough for his lowly situation (verse 4). After all, if John the Baptist held even Christ’s sandal straps in awe, how can we hope to approach his very Body? Instead, Ephrem realizes from the example of another woman in the Gospel narratives (the woman suffering from haemorrhages, Luke 8:43–8) that it will suffice just to touch the edge of Jesus’ garment (verse 5). Since the healing ‘power’ hidden in Jesus’ body was conveyed through his garment to the woman, Ephrem prays that he may be empowered to move from telling about Christ’s garment to telling about his Body (verse 6) From the Gospels (John 9:6) Ephrem further learns that Christ’s hidden power even effects healing through his spittle, providing light for blind eyes (verse 7). The light hidden within the clay which Jesus’ spittle formed leads Ephrem on to the Fire and Spirit hidden in the Eucharistic Bread and Wine (verse 8). By feeding mortals with this spiritual food God is recreating them as spiritual beings, to resemble the angels (verse 9); indeed, under the New Covenant we are allowed actually to consume the very ‘coal of fire' which the Seraph had only been permitted to hold in tongs, and which Isaiah’s lips had merely touched (Isaiah 6:6–7; verse 10). While it had been wonder enough for angels, who are fiery spiritual beings, to consume the meal which Abraham had prepared for them (Genesis 18), the reverse situation now applies, as mortals consume the ‘Bread of Angels’, made of Fire and Spirit (verse 11). This divine Fire is truly awesome: under the Old Covenant it consumed sinners, whereas when we consume it, we receive Life (verse 12). Under the Old Covenant, again, divine Fire consumed sacrifices that were acceptable, whereas we consume the Fire of the sacrificial offering made by God himself (verse 13). The riddles posed by Solomon in Proverbs 30:4 now find their answers – in the Eucharist and in the Virgin Mary, who contained in her very womb Christ’s divine Fire. (Ephrem here points to the important parallelism between the activity of the Holy Spirit at the Virgin Mary’s conception of Christ and the same Spirit’s activity at the invocation, or epiclesis, both in the baptismal service and in the Eucharistic Liturgy) (verses 14–15). The veil of Solomon’s riddle in Proverbs, however, is not only Mary’s bosom, it is also the Sanctuary veil (verse 16). The divine Fire and Spirit are present not only in Mary’s womb, but also in the Jordan, in the baptismal

220

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

font, and in the Eucharistic {65} Bread and Cup (verse 17), potent both to destroy the power of Satan and Death, and to give life to those who consume them (verse 18). In verse 19 Ephrem picks up the examples of verses 5 and 6 in order to point to the awesome nature of Christ’s Body; this, however, is forgotten by some of Ephrem’s contemporaries who, unlike the Apostles at Pentecost, are truly drunk – with intellectual arrogance, as they attempt to probe into the inaccessible mysteries of God’s Being (verse 19; Ephrem has the Arians and Eunomians in mind). Examples of the humility which is requisite are provided in the Gospels: whereas the mighty sea is subjected to Christ’s feet which walk upon it, Christ himself subjects his own head to the insignificant Jordan (compare 2 Kings 5: 10–12, which Ephrem probably has at the back of his mind), as he is baptized by John who had pronounced his own unworthiness (verses 20–21). The poem ends in a self-deprecating manner, so characteristic of Ephrem’s style: Ephrem has collected all the crumbs from Christ’s table that his lap is for the moment capable of holding (verse 22). The name of the melody to which the hymn was originally sung is given as Izgadda Haddaya, ‘Ambassador, Guide’, (two titles of Christ). The metrical structure of each stanza in the Syriac original is as follows: 5 + 6, 7 + 4, 4 + 4, 4 + 5 syllables.

ST. EPHREM, HYMNS ON FAITH NO- 10 1.

2.

3.

4.

You have had it written, 1 Lord, ‘Open your mouth and I will fill it’. Look, your servant’s mouth is open, and his mind as well; fill it, Lord, with your Gift, that I may sing your praise in accordance with your will. Response: Make me worthy to approach your Gift in awe!

Each, according to the level of his own measure, can tell of you; in my boldness I approach the lowest step. Your Birth is sealed up within silence – what mouth then dares meditate on it?

Your nature is single, but there are many ways of explaining it; our descriptions may be exalted, or in moderate terms, or lowly. Make me worthy of the lowest part, that I may gather up, as crumbs, 2 the gleanings of all your wisdom. {66}

Any elevated account of you is hidden with the Father; at your lesser riches the angels stand amazed, while a small trickle of words describing you provides a flood of homilies for mortals below.

1 2

Ps. 81:10. Matt. 15:27.

18. A HYMN OF ST EPHREM ON THE EUCHARIST 5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

For if the great John cried out and said 3 ‘I am not worthy, Lord, of the straps of your sandals', then I should seek refuge, like the sinful woman, in the shadow of your garment 4 and there begin.

And as she was affrighted, but took courage because she was healed, so do you heal my fear and fright, and so I may take courage in you and be conveyed from your garment to your own Body, so that I may tell of it according to my ability. Your garment, Lord, is a fountain of medicines: in your visible clothing there dwells your hidden power. Again, a little spittle from your mouth became a great miracle of light for light was in the clay it made. 5

In your Bread there is hidden the Spirit who is not consumed, in your Wine there dwells the Fire that is not drunk: the Spirit is in your Bread, the Fire in your Wine – a manifest wonder, that our lips have received. When the Lord came down to earth to mortal beings he created them again, in a new creation, like the angels, mingling within them fire and spirit, so that in a hidden manner they might be of fire and spirit. 6

10. The Seraph could not touch the fire’s coal with his fingers, the coal only just touched Isaiah’s mouth: 7 the Seraph did not hold it, Isaiah did not consume it, but our Lord has allowed us to do both ! 11.

To the angels who are spiritual Abraham brought food for the body, and they ate. 8 The new miracle is that our mighty Lord has given to bodily man Fire and Spirit to eat and to drink.

{67}

12. Fire descended in wrath and consumed the sinners; 9 the fire of mercy has now descended and dwelt in the Bread: instead of that fire which consumed mankind we have consumed fire in thé Bread – and we have come to life! Mark 1:7. Luke 8:47. 5 John 9:6. 6 2 Cor. 5:17, Gal 6:15, 7 Isaiah 6:6–7: 8 Gen. 18:8–9. 9 e. g. Gen. 19:24. 3 4

221

222

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

13. Fire descended and consumed Elijah’s sacrifices; 10 the fire of mercies has become a living sacrifice for us: fire consumed Elijah’s oblation, but we, Lord, have consumed your fire in your oblation!

14. Who has ever held in his cupped hands the wind? 11 Come and see, Solomon, what the Lord of your father 12 has done: against nature, he has mingled fire and spirit and poured them out in the hands of his disciples. 15. Who has gathered up water in a veil?’, he asked. 13 Here is a Fountain in a veil – Mary’s bosom. And your maidservants receive, within a veil, the drop of salvation from Salvation’s cup. 16. There is hidden power in the sanctuary’s veil, a power that no mind has ever confined: it brought down its love, descended and hovered over this veil on the altar of reconciliation.

17. See, Fire and Spirit are in the womb of her who bore you, see, Fire and Spirit are in the river in which you were baptized. Fire and Spirit are in our baptismal font, in the Bread and Cup are Fire and Holy Spirit.

18. Your Bread slays the greedy one who had made us his bread, your Cup destroys death who had swallowed us up; we have eaten you, Lord, we have drunken you – not that we will consume you up, but through you we shall have life.

19.

The thong of your sandal is something fearful to the discerning, the hem of your cloak is awesome to those who understand, yet our foolish generation, through its prying into you, has gone quite mad, drunk with new wine.

{68}

20. There is wonder in your very footsteps, which walked on the water: 14 you subjected a great sea beneath your feet, yet your head was subject to just a small river, in that it bent down and was baptized therein.

21. The river resembled John, who baptized in it: I Kings 18:38. Prov. 30:4. 12 Ps. 110:1. 13 Prov. 30:4. 14 Matt. 14:25. 10 11

18. A HYMN OF ST EPHREM ON THE EUCHARIST each reflects the other in its smallness; yet to the small river and to the weak servant was the Master of them both subjected!

22. Look, Lord, my lap is now filled with the crumbs from your table, 15 there is no more room in the folds of my garment, so stay your gift, as I worship before you: keep it in your treasure house in readiness to give us on another occasion.

15

Matt. 15:27.

223

19

EPHREM’S VERSE HOMILY ON JONAH AND THE REPENTANCE OF NINEVEH * Especial interest is attached to the homily on Jonah and the Repentance of Nineveh, attributed to Ephrem (CPG 4082), since it is one of the few works in the corpus of Greek works known under the name of ‘Ephrem Graecus’ which has an extant Syriac counterpart. The original Syriac verse homily (memra) was first published by P.Mubarak and J.E.Assemani in 1740, 1 based on Vatican syr. 117 (twelfth century), an edition now replaced by that of the late Dom Edmund Beck in Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermones II, 2 who used as his base text a much superior sixthcentury manuscript, British Library, Add.14573. Beck knew the Syriac text only from three manuscripts, Add.14573 (his W), Vat.syr.117 (his Y), and Dublin B.5.18 (his T, dated AD 1625). 3 As will be seen below, there are a number of further witnesses to the Syriac text available. Although Mercati had published an extract from the Greek translation (CPG 4082, preserved in a unique manuscript) in 1915, 4 it was not until l967 that the complete Greek text was made available. 5 Mercati, observing that the Greek translator had tried to reproduce the seven-syllable metre of the Syriac original by using octoOriginally published in A. Schoors and P. van Deun (eds.), Polyhistor Miscellanea in honorem C. Laga (OLA 60, 1994), 71–86. 1 Sancti Patris nostri Ephraem Syri Opera Omnia V, Rome 1940, p.359–87. The English translation, by H. Burgess, The Repentance of Nineveh, London 1853, was made from this edition. 2 CSCO 311–2, Scriptores Syri 134–5, 1970. It features as the first text in this pair of volumes. 3 Trinity College (Catalogue no.1506). For the liturgical character of this manuscript, see below. 4 S.I. Mercati, S.Ephraem Syri Opera, I, Rome 1915), p. 91–93 (corresponding to lines 301– of BECK's edition of the Syriac). A comparison of this excerpt with the corresponding Syriac text is given by C. Emereau, Saint Ephrem le Syrien, son oeuvre littéraire grecque, Paris 1918, p. 56–61. 5 D. Hemmerdinger-Iliadou, “Ephrem le Syrien, sermon sur Jonas (texte grec inédit)”, Le Muséon 30 (1967), p. 47–74; this has been reprinted, with a Modern Greek translation, in Ionas Ephraim tou Syrou, Athens, no date. *

225

226

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

syllabic lines, had printed the {72} extract as verse, but in her edition of the full edition of the Greek text Hemmerdinger Iliadou did not attempt to reconstruct the correct verse structure since this had often been badly obscured during the course of the text’s transmission. As the Greek text is preserved in a unique manuscript of the fifteenth century, 6 the Georgian translation, known from a single manuscript of the ninth or tenth century, 7 takes on particular importance as an early witness to the Greek. Further indirect witness to the Greek manuscript tradition is provided by two Latin versions, one (CPL 1149) early, but an adaptation rather than a translation), published by Mai in 1852, 8 and the other, a sixteenth-century translation of a now lost Greek manuscript, by Vossius in 1598. 9 Garitte, who published the Georgian version (together with a Latin translation), subsequently provided a Latin translation of the Armenian version of the homily, 10 published by the Mekhitarists in 1836. 11 Unlike the Georgian, the Armenian had been translated direct from Syriac, and not by way of a Greek intermediary. A further translation into Ethiopic (Geʿez), which goes back, either directly to the Syriac, or indirectly by way of a lost Arabic 12 translation, was subsequently published in 1984 by Arras. 13 Unfortunately, whereas Garitte’s Latin translations of the Georgian and Armenian follow the section numbers introduced by Hemmerdinger Iliadou, the edition by Arras employs a different division {73} of the text (into the same number of sections!). Since none of these editions and translations correlates the section numbers with the line numbers of Beck's edition, a table providing a concordance is given below (TABLE I). Oxford, Bodl.Auct.T.3.12 (= BHG 941g). Edited, with Latin translation, by G. Garitte, “Le sermon de s.Ephrem sur Jonas en géorgien”, Le Muséon 80 (1967), p. 75–119. 8 A. Mai, Nova Patrum Bibliotheca I, Rome 1852, p. 194–204; taken from Vat.Pal.Lat. 210 of the sixth/seventh century (Mai, however, dated it to the eighth century). 9 G. Vossius, Operum Omnium Sancti Ephraem Syri III, Rome 1598, p. 150–160, reprinted in J.S. Assemani, Sancti Patris nostri Ephraem Syri Opera Omnia III, Rome 1746, p. 561–8. 10 G. Garitte, “La version arménienne du sermon de s.Ephrem sur Jonas”, Revue des études arméniennes ns 6 (1969), p. 23–43. Garitte lists a large number of manuscripts containing the homily. 11 Srboyn Ep`remi matenagrut`iwnk` IV, Venice 1836, p.107–124. 12 No trace of any Arabic version, however, seems to be known (cp G. Graf, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur I (Studi e Testi, 118), Rome 1944, p. 426. 13 V. Arras, Asceticon (CSCO 458–9, Scriptores Aethiopici 77–8, 1984), p. 111–41 (text), 73–95 (Latin translation). The text is taken from a single eighteenth-century manuscript, British Library Or.768. A valuable overview of the different versions is given by A. de Halleux, “A propos du sermon ephrémien sur Jonas et la pénitence des Ninivites”, in R. Schulz and M. Gorg (eds), Lingua Restituta Orientalis. Festgabe fur Julius Assfalg (Agypten und Altes Testament 20, 1990), pp. 155–60; de Halleux here questions the attribution to Ephrem (accepted by Beck), and discusses several passages in the Greek text. 6 7

19. EPHREM’S VERSE HOMILY ON JONAH AND NINEVEH

227

FURTHER WITNESSES TO THE SYRIAC TRADITION

(a) One further early (but very fragmentary) Syriac manuscript survives; this is to be found among the Syriac fragments 14 belonging to the ‘New Finds’ made in 1975 at the Monastery of St Catherine, Sinai. Sparagma (Fragment) 31 (= S) consists of scraps of some five folios of an estrangelo manuscript of the seventh or eighth century, written in two columns. Of the parts of five folios, 15 those belonging to two contiguous folios contain the homily on Jonah and the Repentance of Nineveh, covering lines 257–493, with several gaps (notably 403–42). There are very few variants from W (Beck’s text), and only in lines 349 and 389 does S agree with YT against W, whereas in numerous other places S supports W against Y, Y T, or T (thus notably, lines 280, 281, 285–6, 301ff, 339, 348, 356, 376, 381, 383, 394, 446, 449–50, 461, 471, 486). Variants confined to S are very rare and of little significance; thus at 387 S appears to have d-rugza for b-rugza, and in lines 488 and 490 it has singulars instead of plural nouns. (b) The homily on the Repentance of Nineveh was adopted for liturgical use in both the Church of the East and in the Syrian Orthodox Church, during the preLenten fast known as the Rogation of the Ninevites (Baʿuta d-Ninwaye). 16 The homily is best preserved in the East Syrian tradition where it is employed almost in full during the services for Tuesday of the Rogation of the Ninevites; it is available in three printed texts: {74} (1) Teksa da-slota … d-baʿota d-Ninwaye, printed by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Assyrian Missionary Press (two vols, Urmiah, 1896) (= U). 17 (2) Breviarium iuxta ritum syrorum orientalium id est Chaldaeorum, ed. P. Bedjan, (three vols, Paris, 1886–7; reprinted Rome, 1938) (= B; I use the reprint). (3) Hudra, ed. T. Darmo (three vols, Trichur, 1960–2) (= D).

These three editions have an almost identical text, 18 and they attest the same omissions (see TABLE 2(a). There is a large number of variants, for the most part quite These should be distinguished from the much more substantial part of the Syriac new finds which are being catalogued by Mother Philothea; for a preliminary description see her “Les nouveaux manuscrits syriaques du Mont Sinai”, in R. Lavenant (ed.), IIIe Symposium Syriacum (OCA 221, 1983), p. 333–9. The fragments are described in detail in my Catalogue of the Syriac Fragments (New Finds) in the Library of the Monastery of St Catherine, Sinai (Athens, 1995). 15 The original folio size was 29.5 x 24 cms, with thirty lines to a page. Other fragments from the same manuscript contain unidentified memre on ‘Rogations’. 16 The origin of this fast goes back to the late sixth century; cf J.M. Fiey, Assyrie chrétienne III, Beyrouth 1968, p. 20–21, and Hudra I, p. 259 (‘in the time of Persian rule, under Metropolitan Sabrishoʿ of Karka d-Bet Slokhʾ). 17 See J.F. Coakley, “The Archbishop of Canterbury’s Assyrian Mission Press: a bibliography”, Journal of Semitic Studies 30 (1985), p. 35–73, esp. 68–9 (where the manuscript sources, given in the preface, are listed). The part with the services for Tuesday was apparently not published till 1901. 18 Some rare examples where their texts differ are given below. 14

228

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

small, from W, and several of these agree with Y and (above all) T. The character of these variants is discussed further below. In the West Syrian liturgical tradition the homily is employed during Monday to Thursday of the Rogation of the Ninevites. In the one printed edition where the text is to be found, the Syrian Catholic Fenqitho, 19 the text is far from complete, and the sequence is in considerable disorder (see TABLES 2(b) and 3). The Fenqitho (= F) has a large number of variants against W, and these are only supported by B D and U in a rather small number of cases, thus indicating that the East and West Syrian liturgical traditions are not at all closely interrelated here.

THE PROCESS OF ABBREVIATION

The complete text is preserved only in the oldest witness, the sixth-century manuscript W. All other witnesses (apart possibly from S, which is too fragmentary to allow judgement) have abbreviated the text in different ways and to different degrees. The East Syrian liturgical tradition has the fewest omissions (though these include some quite large blocks), while increasingly more are to be found in the Ethiopic (mostly of one or two couplets at a time), Greek (and dependent Georgian), and Armenian. (The sixth-century Latin adaptation, published by Mai, also abbreviates very markedly). Thus up to the end of section 10 (= line 110), B D U omit no lines, T omits 3 lines, the Greek 18, Ethiopic 23 {75} and Armenian 24 lines; in the case of the versions these omissions normally take the form of scattered pairs of lines. Abbreviation may take the form, as above, of the omission of one or two couplets at a time (with little loss in the general sense), or it may consist in the excision of larger blocks; the most notable omissions under the latter category are: 301–346

T(301–345) B D U

989–1022

Armenian

575–613

1139–1164 1233–1252 1581–1602 1607–1710 1715–1958 1717–1946

most of 1757–1806 1873–1927 19

Greek Georgian TBDU

Greek Georgian

T B D U Greek Georgian TBDU

Armenian TBDU

Greek Georgian Greek Georgian

Breviarium iuxta Ritum Ecclesiae Antiochenae Syrorum/Fenqitho III, Mosul 1889.

19. EPHREM’S VERSE HOMILY ON JONAH AND NINEVEH 1934–1952

Greek Georgian

1967–end

Greek Georgian

1961–end

2089–2122

229

Armenian (with a different doxology) Ethiopic

The agreement of T with B D U in these, and other omissions, shows clearly that it belongs to the East Syrian liturgical tradition, 20 of which it proves to be a not very good representative. Apart from this, the lack of agreement over omissions between the remainder of the textual tradition is striking, the only exception being provided by the omission of 1581–1602, common to the East Syrian Liturgical tradition and the Greek and dependent Georgian translation; it is noticeable, however, that all the versions make considerable cuts towards the end of the memra.

THE CHARACTER OF THE TRANSLATIONS

The general character of the different translations can best be illustrated by two samples, where they are juxtaposed with a very literal English translation of the original Syriac. Since the Georgian and the sixteenth-century Latin translation, both made from Greek, add nothing of importance here, they are not included. {76} §

35 = lines 525–32

Syriac:

Greek:

Nineveh, mother of giants, at a single feeble man was afraid, a lioness in her lair was purturbed by the Hebrew; Assyria (Athor) roared out in creation while the voice of Jonah roars out in it: to such an extent was it brought low, – the seed of Nimrod the giant.

φωνὴν ἐλαχίστου φοβηθεῖσα ἔπτηξεν ἡμῶν ἡ πόλις Νινευί, ἡ μήτηρ τῶν γιγάντων, ἡ φοβερὰ λέαινα ἐν τῇ αὐτῆς μάνδρᾳ, σφόδρα ἐθορυβήθη ἀπὸ Ἑβραίου. εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην ὠρύεται Νινευί, καὶ ἡ φωνὴ Ἰωνᾶ ὠρύεται ἐπ’ αὐτήν ἇρα οὕτως τὸ σπέρμα Νεβρὼθ ἐξησθένησεν τοῦ γενναίου (ms νέου) γίγαντος τοῦ ταύτην κτίσαντος

Latin (ed. Mai, p.198): nothing corresponding.

Armenian: Ninive mater gigantum ab uno debili timuit, leo in latebra sua (v.l. nemore suo) conturbatus est a Hebraeo; rugiit Assyria in terram

The extra passages in T, quoted in translation in Beck’s introduction to Scr.Syri 134, p. vi, are the madrashe which occur in the service alongside the qeryane/readings; cf. U, pp. 231, 277. 20

230

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD et vox Ionae rugiit in ea. (om. lines 531–2).

Ethiopic: Ninive quae non timet a fortibus et strenuis ab uno debili timuit, leonina in cubili suo territa est ab uno Hebraeo. et rugiit Ator in mundo et terruit eum et vox Ionae terruit haec omnia. Debilis facta est fortitudo Nemrod gigantis.

It will be observed at once that the Armenian and the Ethiopic both keep much closer to the original than does the Greek; in the latter, of course, the translator is under the constraint of trying to produce syllabic verse, and this has resulted in altered word order and small alterations and additions (e.g. in the last line). {77}

§ 80 = lines 1693–1710 Syriac:

Greek:

Jonah seized hold of pretexts and he put together many crafty (ideas): “It is a great feast, he says, in our land, and no foreigner can enter; it is a feast of the children of the People, and there is no one there from the gentiles. It is a great feast of the circumcized, and no uncircumcized person treads there; and even though you are penitents, you do not belong to the circumcized: that pure feast will be profaned by uncircumcision. Go now in quiet, and return to (your) country in peace; you shall come after a while, once the feast has been carried out. Accept our advice with consent and our request without dispute”.

ἤρξατο δὲ προφασίζεσθαι ὁ προφήτης καὶ λέγειν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις προφάσεις τε μὴ οὔσας. Νῦν ἑορτὴ μεγάλη ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ γῇ ἡμῶν καὶ οὐ δύναται ἐκεῖ ἀλλογενὴς εἰσελθεῖν. (om. lines 1697–1700) εἰ γὰρ καὶ πιστοί ἐστέ, ἀλλ’ οὐ δύνασθε ἐλθεῖν εἰς τὴν ἑορτὴν θεοῦ ἀπερίτμητοι· (om. lines 1703–1704) διὸ ὑποστρέψατε ἐν χαρᾷ καὶ εἰρήνῃ εἰς τὴν πατρίδα ὑμῶν, πρὸς τὸν πέμψαντα ὑμᾶς· καὶ ὅτε ἡ ἑορτὴ τοῦ θεοῦ παρέλθῃ, ἐὰν θέλετε, πάλιν ὑποστρέψατε ἐντεῦθεν. (om. lines 1709–1710)

Latin (ed. Mai, p.202): Quali, rogo propheta, consilio ardorem hominum illorum et desiderium delusisti? Dixisti forsitan illis, celebritatem quandam in provincia vestra tunc temporis esse regalem, et introire illuc alienigenas non licere: sacrificii ritus, paenitentium societate foedari. Sed redire tantisper ad patriam, et eos postmodum posse cum vellent occurrere, promisisti.

19. EPHREM’S VERSE HOMILY ON JONAH AND NINEVEH

231

Nec tantum puto propter te de tali mendacio, quam propter Ninivitas de malo verebaris exemplo.

Armenian: Ionas vero celabat iniquitatem populi sui, sed sicut persuasit ille mendaci vero nautis in fuga sua, ita persuadebat Ninivitis: “Festum magnum est, ait, in terra nostra et non licet illuc intrare alieno; festum est filiorum populi mei, et non est in eis e gentibus. (om. lines 1699–1704) Ite vos nunc et revertimini in regionem vestram in pace, et deinde venite post tempus cum perficientur festa nostra “. (om. lines 1709–10). {78}

Ethiopic (§ 72): Ionas igitur coepit eis praetextus et adauxit praetextare et dixit: “Festum magnum est hodie in terra nostra et non potest intrare extraneus; festum est filiorum populi nostri et non in eo aliae gentes; festum est circumcisorum et non admittunt in illud incircumcisos. Et dum poenitentes estis, et circumcisi non facti estis; profanabitur festum purum praeputio vestro. Abite nunc in pace et revertimini in regionem vestram, et venietis post dies, quando completum erit festum; et accipite sermonem meum et sine disputatione revertimini in regionem vestram”.

By contrast with § 35, here the early Latin adaptation represents elements of the Syriac fairly closely, but the characteristically Greek device of ethopoiia 21 is employed in order to introduce Jonah’s words. Of the other three translations, the Greek is again the most free, and the Armenian the most given to abbreviation. Though both Armenian and Ethiopic generally keep very close to the Syriac, some extraneous elements have been introduced, notably by the Armenian at the beginning of the section, but also, though much less dramatically, by the Ethiopic at the end.

DISCUSSION OF SELECT PASSAGES

The superiority of readings in W in general terms is further indicated by a certain number of places where metrical considerations show that the variants provided by the other Syriac witnesses must be secondary. Almost all involve places where the Cf my Dramatic dialogue poems, in H.J.W. Drijvers, R. Lavenant, C. Molenberg and G.J. Reinink (eds), IV Symposium Syriacum (OCA 229, 1987), p. 146 (with note 34). A comparative study of the Latin and Syriac from the point of view of differing rhetorical features and styles would be most instructive. 21

232

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

radical alaph has preserved its consonantal value in the metrical structure attested by W, but lost it in the other witnesses; thus, e.g. 143 W YT=BDU

asya d-ʾezal da-nʾasse ‘the doctor who went to heal’ " " (h)wa d-n(')asse

For the retention of the consonantal value of alaph here in W, compare lines 153 and 154 (in the latter (h)wa has again been added, in two different places, in B D and in U in order to compensate for the loss of alaph’s consonantal value. 956 W wal-'alaha taybuta ‘and to God, grace’ T = B D U wl-(')alaha den taybuta ‘but to God, grace’ F " " ya(h)b(w) taybuta ‘and to God they gave grace’

{79}

A similar situation occurs in line 1230, also involving wal-'alaha > wl-(’)alaha, where T = B D U and F again provide different supplements. 1513 W BDU

dab-'iqara nessaq lah ‘so that in honour he might go up to it’ db-(')iqara rabba nessaq ‘so that in great honour he might go up’

Another analogous case where the metre has been unnecessarily ‘corrected’ is to be found at line 2012, where the later witnesses read krm' as karma instead of karrama: W w-karrama shubha ya(h)b leh ‘and the vineyard-tender gave glory to him’ T = B D U w-karma shubha ya(h) (h)wa leh.

It is also significant that W receives the support of the versions in many places where the later Syriac witnesses provide a variant, e.g. 191 W (')hrane ‘others’ = Eth. T = B D U hzayya ‘onlookers’ (from l88). 232 W saybata ‘white hairs’ = Arm. Eth. Gr. B D U F sabata ‘old women’ (due to influence of sabe ‘old men’ earlier). 253 W kull sa` ‘always’ = Arm. Eth. B D U kull (')nas ‘everyone’. 446 W la nelbash ‘should he not put on’ = S Arm. (Eth.) B D U nelbas (h)wa ‘he should put on’. 584 W d-'ayna da-pkah nethayyab ‘so that he who was insipid might be held guilty’ = Eth. (Arm. and Gr. have an omission here); T = B D U d-'ayna d-pakkih netmaddak (netmakkak) ‘so that he who is insipid may be given taste (T be brought low)’. 824 W nahtayhon ‘their garments’ = F Arm. Eth. Gr. T = B D U 'a(y)kwateh ‘like him’. 862 W w-sedre sa`ar zahya'it ‘and he inspects the ranks honourably’ = Arm. Eth. B D U b-hashsha w-'ebla w-karyuta ‘in suffering, mourning and sorrow’. 1071 W mawta ‘death’ = Arm. Eth. Gr. T = B D U qabra ‘grave’. 1210 W wa-mbayya' ‘and comforts’ = Arm. (om. Eth. Gr.) T = B D U wa-mbakke ‘and causes to weep’.

19. EPHREM’S VERSE HOMILY ON JONAH AND NINEVEH

233

1288 W w-dahel dalma ‘and he fears lest’ = Eth. Gr. (Arm. has an omission here); B D U w-rane (D w-ranen) d-dalma ‘and he (D they) thinks that maybe’. 1529 W nahet ‘he goes down’ = Arm. Eth. (Gr. has an omission here); T = B D U `areq ‘he flees’. 1530 W 'ap ‘also’ = Arm. Eth. (Gr. has an omission here); B D U za` ‘trembled’ (based on lines 12, 16 etc). {80}

We can actually observe the process of the introduction of new readings in the East Syrian liturgical tradition in the rather small number of places where B D and U are divided. Thus: 273 W dab-tebil ‘which are in the world’ = B D Arm. Eth. Gr. T = U d-metyabbal ‘which is conveyed’. 739 W = B (Arm.) Eth. Gr. D U add a further couplet here. 761 W metkattash ‘strives’ = B D Gr. (Arm. vult; Eth. has an omission here); T = U metkashshap ‘supplicates’.

Only very rarely do these secondary readings in the East Syrian liturgical traditon find support (probably coincidental) in the versions, e.g. 1560 W `azziza ‘mighty (herald)’ = B D U T `ebraya ‘Hebrew’ = Eth. (Arm. and Gr. have an omission here).

Although a great many readings in T B D U can thus be rejected as secondary developments, there is a small number of cases where this East Syrian liturgical tradition has clearly preserved a better reading that that in W; thus: 96 W makkek(w) ‘they (m.) brought low’ T = B D U makkek ‘they (f.) brought low’ (the subject is ‘free-born women’. 265 W bah ‘in it’ T = B D U Arm. Eth. Gr. lan ‘to us’. 361 W hakkime ‘wise’ Y T = B D U Arm. Gr. ‘beloved’; Eth. nostri. 543 W mawta ger ‘for death’ (T) B D U Arm. Eth. Gr. ‘en mawta (h)u ‘if it is death’ 603 W bise ‘evil men’ B D U (Arm.) Eth. b-nese ‘(acted perversely) with women’ (clearly correct in the context); Gr. has an omission here. 796 W pagrayhon ‘their bodies’ T = B D U Arm. (Eth.) Gr. garmayhon ‘their bones’. {81} 974 W wa-slota ‘and prayer’ T = B D U F Eth. (Gr.) b-'ulsana ‘in affliction’; Arm. has an omission here.

W's reading is influenced by the frequent pair sawma wa-slota ‘fasting and prayer’. 1097 W `ubbe d-`ule ‘bosoms of babes’ T B D U Arm. `ule b-`ubbe ‘babes in bosoms’; Gr. has an omission here. 1236 W marrira ‘(in) bitter (ashes)’

234

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD B D U Eth. medyare ‘habitations’ (which is required by the parallelism with sure); Arm. and Gr. have an omission here. 1399 W karka ‘town’ T = B D U Gr. Eth. `amma ‘people’; Arm. has an omission here.

Only on very rare occasions are the versions divided in their support for a Syriac variant, e.g. 27 W netrat ‘preserved’ = F (cf Gr.) T = B D U perqat ‘saved’ = Eth.; Arm. has an omission here. 660 W basreh ‘scorned it’ cf Gr. T = B D U basran(y) ‘scorned me’ = Eth.; Arm. has an omission here.

Even rarer seem to be the cases where the versions clearly point to an unattested Syriac variant. Thus, at line l596, where the Syriac witnesses all have tqn'/taqne ‘steadfast’, Arm. and Eth. both presuppose *tyb' ‘penitents’ (evidently, in view of the metre, read as taybe, not tayyabe). A full collation of all the versions would no doubt throw up some other instances. It is clear from the examples above that, although the East Syrian liturgical tradition, represented by T B D U, may on occasion preserve an original reading that has been corrupted in W, much more frequently it is clearly secondary. In the light of this state of affairs, in the vast majority of places where T B D U offer seemingly plausible variants, it will, other things being equal, be preferable to reject them as secondary developments, aimed at a smoother and more intelligible reading. The long homily on Jonah and the repentance of Nineveh has the distinction of being one of the very few Syriac narrative poems to have been translated, not only into various oriental Christian languages, but also into Greek and (presumably thence) into Latin, where it was definitely known to Caesarius of Arles. 22 In the present article, offered as a {82} small tribute to Professor Carl Laga, only a few points concerning the manuscript tradition have been touched upon, but it is hoped that sufficient has been said to indicate how much remains to be explored in this field. SYRIAC (line) 1

13 17

Table 1 Concordance to line and section numbers ENGLISH tr.

ETHIOPIC (section)

GREEK (section)

Pr 13

-

2

Pr 1

Pr 17

21

Pr 21

29

Pr 29

1 2 -

3

1 -

3 4

See Y-M. Duval, Le Livre de Jonas dans la littérature chrétienne grecque et latine (Études Augustiniennes), Paris 1973, p. 546–547. 22.

19. EPHREM’S VERSE HOMILY ON JONAH AND NINEVEH SYRIAC (line)

ENGLISH tr.

ETHIOPIC (section)

GREEK (section)

45

I.9

4

-

39 47

I.11

55

I.19

65

I.29

69

I.33

79

I.41

97

I.59

99

I.61

111

I.73

125

I.87

131

I.93

143

I.105

153

I.115

165

I.127

179

I.141

183

I.145

201

I.165

203

I.167

219

I.186

227

II.1

231

II.5

251

II.25

277

II.50

301

II.74

303

II.76

329

II.98

331

II.100

337 355 {83}

I.3

II.106 361

II.124 II.130

-

5 -

6 7 -

8 -

9 -

10 -

11 -

12 -

13 -

14 15 16 -

17 -

18 -

19

5 6 7 -

8 9 -

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 -

18 -

19 -

20 21 22 -

23 -

24 -

25 -

235

236

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

SYRIAC (line)

ENGLISH tr.

ETHIOPIC (section)

GREEK (section)

393

II.162

20

-

389 407 425 442 443 455 475 487 497 505 525 533 555 563 575 605 631 647 657 677 687 699 731 749 769 775 801 823 836 837

II.158 II.176 II.194 II.211 III.1

III.13 III.33 III.45 III.55 III.62 III.82 III.90

III.112 III.120 III.134 III.164 IV.1

IV.17 IV.27 IV.47 IV.57 IV.69

IV.101 IV.119 IV.139 IV.145 IV.170 V.1

V.14 V.15

-

21 22 23 -

24 25 -

26 -

27 28 -

29 30 31 -

32 -

33 34 -

35 36 37 38 -

26 27 28 -

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 -

37 -

38 39 40 -

41 42 -

43 -

44 45 -

46

19. EPHREM’S VERSE HOMILY ON JONAH AND NINEVEH SYRIAC (line)

ENGLISH tr.

ETHIOPIC (section)

GREEK (section)

871

V.48

40

-

859 879

V.56

901

V.77

921

V.92

933

V.104

951

V.122

975

V.146

981

V.152

989

1013 1023 1053 1061 1081 {84}

V.38

1089

1105 1111 1125 1143 1165 1181 1187 1205 1221 1225 1257 1263 1287 1305

(1325)

V.160 V.183 V.193 V.223 V.231 VI.7

VI.15 VI.31 VI.37 VI.52 VI.70 VI.92

VI.108 VI.114 VI.132 VI.148 VI.152 VII.1 VII.6

VII.28 VII.46 VII.66

39 -

41 42 43 44 -

45 -

46 -

47 -

48 -

49 -

50 51 52 53 -

54 -

55 -

56 57 58 -

47 48 49 50 51 52 53 -

54 -

55 -

56 -

57 -

58 -

59 -

60 61 -

62 -

63 -

64 -

65/66

237

238

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

SYRIAC (line)

ENGLISH tr.

ETHIOPIC (section)

GREEK (section)

1349

VII.90

-

67

1337 1363 1373 1389 1399 1409 1415 1427 1431 1451 1461

(1477) 1491 1505 1511 1543 1555 1569 1597 1625 1651 1671 1673 1693 1711 1723 1767 1807 1851 {85}

1871

VII.78

VII.104 VII.114 VII.130 VII.140 VII.150 VII.156 VII.168 VII.172 VIII.1

VIII.11 VIII.25 VIII.39 VIII.53 VIII.59 VIII.88

VIII.100 IX.1

IX.29 IX.57 IX.83

IX.101 IX.103 IX.123 IX.141 IX.153 X.37 X.76

X.120 X.140

59 60 -

61 -

62 -

63 -

64 65 -

66 67 -

68 69 70 71 72 -

73 74 75 76 -

-

68 69 70 71 72 -

73 74 75 -

76 -

77 78 -

79 80 81 -

82 -

(83)

19. EPHREM’S VERSE HOMILY ON JONAH AND NINEVEH SYRIAC (line)

ENGLISH tr.

ETHIOPIC (section)

GREEK (section)

1915

XI.1

78

-

1875/6 1953 1959 1983

2017(?) 2041 2123

2097!

X.144 XI.29

77 79

XI.35

84

80

XI.73

om

81

om

om

82

om

om

83

om

-

-

XI.59

239

om

84

om

Table 2 Use of Memra for Rogation of Nineveh. (a) East Syrian tradition

lines

Ḥudra I (p.)

Brev.Chald. I (p.)

Bā‘ūtā d-Nināye (p.)

425–858

351–57

444*–50*

223–31

1–424

861–1336 1339–2142

344–50 374–81 381–88

438*–44* 453*–59* 460*–66*

215–22 269–77 278–86

Omissions in the East Syrian tradition: 301–46, 449–50, 1125–36, 1139–64, 1581– 1602, 1607–1710, 1717–1946, 1951–2, 1954–5, 1981–2, 1987–8, 1991–2, 1997–8, 2047–8. lines

1–36

37–94

165–250 451–462 505–574 801–900

(b) West Syrian tradition Fenqitho III 108b–109a

87a–88a (om.73–78)

130b–132a (om.189–198, 201–208) 142a

93b–94a (om.517–518, 539–550)

114a–115b (om.829–836, 842, 844, 846–847, 853–856, 859– 870, 879–890)

240

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

lines

Fenqitho III

987–1002

137b–138a

917–986

120a–121a (om.933–936, 949–950)

1229–1230

138a

1253–1254

138a

1249–1260

142b

1297–1298

142b

1301–1314 {86}

1983–1998

2001–2020 2021–2062

138a (om.1303–1304, 1307–1312, 1315–1316) 149a–b (om.1989–1994) 149a

148a–149a

2117–2126

148a, 149a.

Table 3 Sequence of passages from Memra in Fenqitho

Fenqitho III (p.)

Memra (lines)

93b–94b (Sapro, Monday)

505–516 + 519–538 + 551–574

86a–88a (Lilyo, Monday)

108b–109b (Lilyo, Tuesday)

114a–115b (Sapro, Tuesday) 120a–121a (Ramsho, Wednesday) 130b–132a (Lilyo, Wednesday)

137b–138a (Sapro, Wednesday)

142a–b (Ramsho, Thursday) 148a–149b (Sapro, Thursday)

37–60 + 87–93 + 69–72 + 79–86 1–36

871–878 + 891–900 + couplet + 801–828 + 837–841 + 843 + 845 + 848–858

917–932 + 937–948 + 951–980 + couplet + 981–986 couplet + 165–188 + 100–200 + 209–250

987–1002 + couplet + 1229–1230 + couplet + 1253–

1254 + 1301–1302 + 1305–1306 + 1317 + 1316 + 1313–1314 + couplet

couplet + 451–462 + 1249–1260 + 1297–1298 2117–2123 + 2021–2062 + 2001–2012+ 2123–2126 + 2013–2016 + 2019–2020 + 2017–2018 + 1983–1988 + 1995–1998

20

‘BLESSED IS THAT OLD AGE WHICH HAS GROWN OLD WITH GOOD DEEDS’: A NEGLECTED POEM ATTRIBUTED TO ST EPHREM * INTRODUCTION

In the fourth volume of his Hymni et Sermones Sancti Ephraem Syri Th. Lamy published two poems, both attributed to St Ephrem, 1 which are preserved in a single manuscript, British Library Add.14,592, dated by William Wright in his Catalogue (p.684) to the sixth or seventh century. Despite the early date of the manuscript, neither poem was among the madrashe republished by Dom Edmund Beck in CSCO. While attributions to Ephrem of madrashe in the liturgical manuscripts of the ninth century or later are highly unreliable and often prove to be incorrect, in the case of a sixthor seventh-century manuscript such an attribution has a good chance of being correct, and both deserve more attention than they have hitherto been accorded. The present volume of The Harp, in honour of Father Abraham Kalakudi who has done so much for SEERI in his unobtrusive way, seems an opportune occasion to offer a translation and study of the second of these two poems. {8} Before dealing with the question of the attribution, it will be best to present first a translation of the poem (the text is republished, with some improved readings, as an appendix). The poem is described in the manuscript as a madrasha, that is, a stanzaic poem, even though the scribe gives no indication where the stanzas begin or end. For reasons that will become clear below, the poem is here broken up into stanzas of five lines each.

TRANSLATION 1.

Blessed is the person whose heard is filled with deep peace; blessed is the person who has become wakeful at all times; blessed is the person who has become vigilant, with discernment;

Originally published in The Harp 24 (2009), 7–22. IV (Malines, 1902), cols 775–90. The first poem, not discussed further here, has an alphabetic acrostic. *

1

241

242

1.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD blessed is the person who has become ‘salt’ in this generation; blessed is the person who has become (a source of) light at this time;

5

blessed is the person who has become silent and still; blessed is the person who has become gentle and kind; blessed is the person who has carried out, and taught, what has been commanded; blessed is the person the gaze of whose eyes is chaste; blessed is the person who has dwelt at home in single fashion; 10 blessed is the person who has taken up Your yoke in his youth; blessed is the person who has kept in mind at every moment that he is mortal; blessed is the person who has made abundant provisions in his youth; blessed is the person who has become dead while still living; blessed is the person who has kept in mind that he is on a journey; 15 blessed is the mortal who has scattered his possessions; blessed is the poor whose gaze is in the direction of that place; blessed is the person who has attained to the blessed state of the saints; blessed is the person who has stilled the stirring of his limbs; blessed is the person who has been a virgin in (the use of) his tongue; blessed is the person who has preserved his body unsullied; blessed is the person who has been mute with discretion; blessed is the person who has loved his Lord and his God; blessed is the person who has loved his neighbour, as himself; blessed is the person who has loved chaste habits;

20

25

blessed is the person who has abhorred/disliked any association with laxity; blessed is the person who has become a companion to those that fast; blessed is the person who has become a brother to the valiant; blessed is the person who has become a temple for God; blessed is the person who has become a dwelling for the Holy Spirit; 30

{9}

blessed is the person who has become a companion of the perfected; blessed is the person who has become the likeness of those of old; blessed is the person who has become chaste, like Joseph; blessed is the person who has become humble, like Moses; blessed is the person who has become a virgin, like Elijah; blessed is the person who has utterly rejected the lusts; blessed is the rich man who fixes his eyes on Abraham; blessed is the poor man who fixes his eyes on Lazarus; blessed is the righteous whose mind is humble; blessed is the sinner who looks to forgiveness;

blessed is the frail who considers his shortcomings; blessed is youthfulness which abhors the lusts; blessed is youthfulness which has kept its eyes on Paradise; blessed is youthfulness which has rejected luxuries; blessed is youthfulness which has acquired watchfulness;

35

40

45

20. ‘BLESSED IS THAT OLD AGE’ 10. blessed is youthfulness which has bridled its limbs; blessed is youthfulness which has loved purity; blessed is youthfulness which has trampled on its own thoughts; blessed is youthfulness which has loved sincerity; blessed is youthfulness which has rejected this (earthly) abode;

11. blessed is youthfulness which has abhorred luxuries; blessed is youthfulness which has rejected the temporal bridal chamber; blessed is youthfulness which has polished its thought; blessed is youthfulness which has crucified its limbs; blessed is youthfulness which has kept its gaze on that place; 12. blessed is youthfulness which has made holy its youthful vigour; blessed is youthfulness which has hated slackness; blessed is youthfulness which has knocked (on the door of) that place; blessed is youthfulness which has come to reign in that radiance; blessed is youthfulness which has kept its eye on that goal. 13.

{10} blessed is that old age which has crossed over that place of dread; blessed is that old age which has grown old with good deeds; blessed is that old age which rejected the (fact that it is) old; blessed is that old age which has preserved virginity; blessed is that old age which has shown love for the saints;

14. blessed is that old age which proved suitable in its youthfulness; blessed is that old age which has fixed its gaze on that place; blessed is that old age which has desired the crown of Life/salvation; blessed is that old age which has loved (the heavenly) delights; blessed is that old age which is gentle and humble; 70 15. blessed is that old age which has become a bridal chamber of light; blessed is that old age which takes pleasure in Eden; blessed is that old age which frisks on high; blessed is that old age which exults at the resurrection; blessed is that old age which is rejuvenated in Eden.

A FURTHER WITNESS

243

50

55

60

65

75

A selection from this series of ‘Blessed…’ is also to be found in another manuscript in the British Library, Add. 14,577, f.94a–b (9th century), entitled ‘Admonition of Mar Isaac’. It is unclear which particular Isaac is intended. This extract contains lines 1–40, but with a number of omissions and additions, as well as several smaller variations: (a) omissions of whole lines: lines 10, 12, 15, 22, 27, 31, 31, 35, 37. (b) additions: after line. 34 (thus replacing 35): + 3 lines, as follows,

244

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD ‘blessed is the person who has become an ascetic (‘anwaya) just as (he has become) an old man; 2 blessed is the person who, as an old man, has abhorred the world; blessed is the person who has despised and abhorred the delights of the world’.

and after no. 40: + 3 lines, as follows,

‘blessed is the person who has placed his death before his eyes; 3 {11} blessed is the person who has shown love and given to the poor; blessed is the person who has opened his door to the needy’.

(c) transpositions: lines 5 and 6; 16 and 17.

(d) other significant differences:

line 4: instead of dr’, which can be taken as either ‘generation’ or ‘conflict’, Add. 14,577 has d’r’, which can only be ‘conflict’; see further the commentary.

line 8: instead of d‘bd w’lp (da-‘bad w-allep), ‘who has acted and taught’, Add. 14,577 has d-’ylp w‘bd (d-’ilep wa-‘bad), ‘who has learnt and acted’.

line 19: Add. 14,577 has ‘blessed is the person who has stripped off the passions of his limbs’ (d-ashlaḥ ḥashshe d-haddamaw).

It seems likely that all of these are secondary developments (this is shown in some cases by the fact that the metre is ignored).

A third witness is to be found in a palimpsest from Sinai published by A.S. Lewis in her Apocrypha Syriaca (Studia Sinaitica XI; London, 1902), 125*-126*. Described as ‘stanzas of makarisms by Mar Ephrem the Teacher’, the text on f.116b (= p.125*) provides lines 2–4 (3 is illegible), 6–9 (8 is illegible), then after one illegible line, 12 and 13. The text on f.119b (= p.126*), is different, being a series of ṭubaw(hy) layna d-, a form not attested in Add. 14,592. The manuscript is now Cambridge Or. 1287 (G).

ATTRIBUTION

The second and third of Ephrem’s Madrashe on Faith are likewise poems which consist entirely of verses beginning ‘Blessed is…’ (ṭubaw(hy) l-…), and so the structure of the present poem has a clear precedent in these two poems which are certainly genuine. The fact, however, that the second manuscript gives a completely different attribution immediately indicates the possibility that our poem, although early, may This seems to be the intended meaning, corresponding to, in the Indian context, becoming a sanyasi in old age. 3 An illuminating discussion of this theme in Greek philosophical tradition is to be found in P. Hadot (tr. M. Chase), Philosophy as a Way of Life: Spiritual Exercises from Socrates to Foucault (Oxford, 1995), pp. 93–101, 138. 2

20. ‘BLESSED IS THAT OLD AGE’

245

not really be by Ephrem. A further cause for hesitation is provided by the choice of metre used: whereas the two madrashe in the collection on Faith are not only in a well-attested collection, but are also in a metre which is used by Ephrem on several other occasions, 4 the metre of the present poem does not otherwise feature among the genuine poems (see further below, on Metre). {12} This in itself is not necessarily evidence against genuineness, since there are two other cases in the collections edited by Beck where a metre occurs only once. 5 Nevertheless, the combination of these two factors means that we should accept that there is a serious element of doubt concerning the attribution to Ephrem. The question might be resolved if one could find definite borrowings from On Faith 2–3, for Ephrem was not in the habit of quoting, or alluding to, his own poems. There are in fact three possible allusions (see the Commentary to lines 4, 12, and 21, and although none of these is conclusive in itself, the combination of three does seriously suggest that we are dealing with a later poet who pays tribute to Ephrem by these passing allusions. This leaves us with the possibility that the attribution in the second manuscript to Isaac might be correct. Against this, it should be noted that Add. 14,592 contains many poems specifically attributed to Isaac ‘the teacher of the Church’ (including the famous one on the parrot which uttered the Trisagion), and so it would be surprising that, if our poem was really be Isaac, it should have been attributed in this manuscript to Ephrem. At present there seem to be no means of resolving this question of authorship; this, however, should not detract from the interest that the poem has in its own right.

THE GENRE OF MAKARISMS (BEATITUDES)

The model for series of short sayings introduced by ‘Blessed …’ will undoubtedly be the Beatitudes of Matthew 5:3–11 (with a series of eleven sayings, whereas the parallel in Luke 6:20–21 has only four). Although single phrases with ‘Blessed …’ are found in a number of places in the Old Testament (and in Classical Greek literature 6), the only earlier sequence of such phrases is to be found in Bar Sira (Ecclesiasticus) 25:8–9, with four. In Syriac, as has just bee noted, Ephrem provides two poems with an extensive series (twenty four in On Faith 2, and eleven in On Faith 3), as well as a number of other poems where he opens many stanzas with ‘Blessed …’ (notably Madrashe on Virginity, no. 15); On Faith 2–3, however, {13} are the only poems of Ephrem’s where every stanza begins with ‘Blessed…’, and indeed in this re7+7 7+7, with the qala title alaha b-raḥmaw(hy); Beck suggests that this is an error for alaha da-rḥemtunay(hy), which is the qala for the metre 7+7 7+7; if he is correct, then the Response (of 7 syllables) is treated as an integral element in the metre. In any case, both metres occur elsewhere in Ephrem’s genuine madrashe. 5 This applies to On the Church 51, and On the Nativity 22. 6 The concise study by G. L. Dirichlet, De veterum macarismis (Giessen, 1914) remains a useful account. 4

246

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

spect he appears to be the first Christian writer in any language to provide such a series. Sequences of beatitudes are not infrequent in subsequent Syriac poems, both memre and madrashe; examples of the former can be found in Beck’s edition of memre attributed to Ephrem (Sermones III.4, lines 641–735, with a series of twenty four; the memra is definitely not by Ephrem) and Jacob of Serugh’s Verse Homily on Mary (a series of thirteen). 7 For the latter, a considerable number of examples can be found in liturgical sources, such as the three on Simon (Peter), Paul and Thomas, published by Lamy (IV, cols 673–702). A rare example in prose occurs in the Acts of Thecla (ed. W. Wright, pp.131–3), with a series of thirteen. It so happens that two sets of Makarisms, or strings of phrases beginning makarios, ‘Blessed’, attributed to Ephrem in Greek 8 also happen to amount to 75 lines (55 + 20), as does our present poem; however they in fact bear no relationship to any of the Syriac poems.

METRE

Both at the beginning and at the end the text is described in Add. 14,592 as a madrasha, in other words, a stanzaic poem. The metre is not hard to discern, namely lines of 5+5 syllables; no indication, however, is given in the manuscript, either in the form of the indication of a qala, or by means of punctuation, of how the text is to be broken up into stanzas. In the volumes of Ephrem edited by E. Beck in CSCO there are six syllabic metres consisting solely of units of five syllables, but none of these would be suitable for a poem of 75 lines: (1) 5+5 5+5: this would mean that every two lines formed a stanza, resulting in a poem of 37 and a half stanzas. {14} (2) 5+5 5+5 5: this would mean every two and half lines formed a stanza; this would involve stanza breaks at the wrong place. (3) 5+5 5+5 5+5: this would mean every three lines formed a stanza, but again this will not fit the total of 75 lines. (4) 5+5 5+5 5+5 5+5 5: this would also involve a stanza break at the wrong place. (5) 5+5 5+5 5+5 5+5 5+5 5: the same applies. (6) 5+5 5+5 5+5 5+5 5+5 5+5: this would mean stanzas of six lines, but this is not divisible into 75. In fact the only five-syllable metre that would fit is one consisting of five lines of 5+5 syllables, a metre which appears never to have been used by Ephrem, thus Ed. P. Bedjan, Martyrii qui et Sahdona quae supersunt omnia (Paris/Leipzig, 1902), 638–9 = the additional vol. VI of the Gorgias Press reprint of Homiliae Selectae Mar-Jacobi Sarugensis (2006), 26–7 (a series of thirteen); English translation in M. Hansbury, Jacob of Serug, On the Mother of God (Crestwood NJ, 1998), 41–2. 8 M. Geerard, Clavis Patrum Graecorum II (Turnhout, 1974), nos 3935(a) and (b); the text is given in K.G. Phrantzolas, Hosiou Ephraim tou Syrou erga II (Athens, 1989), 252–62, 267–70. 7

20. ‘BLESSED IS THAT OLD AGE’

247

casting some further doubt on the attribution in the manuscript. The metre does, however, feature in later liturgical collections of madrashe, and there it has the qala title kpuryeh d-shem‘on. 9

STRUCTURE

It would appear that the structure of the poem is quite elaborate; broken up into six units (designated A–F), we have:

A 1–15 B 16–17

C 18–36 D 37–41

E 42–60 F 61–75

general specific

general specific

(‘the person who’) 15 lines 2 lines

youthfulness old age

19 lines 5 lines

19 lines 15 lines

From this table it can readily be seen that the overarching pair A+F (both of 15 lines), incorporates the interlinked B+D (specific people) and C+ E (both of 19 lines). At the same time A+C (general) balances E+F (youthfulness, old age), since both pairs consist of 34 lines). Furthermore, at least two further small details might be noticed: gnon zabna = 11th in youthfulness gnon nuhra = 11th in old age. {15}

COMMENTARY

1. deep peace: shlam shayna.

4. salt (melḥa): the reference will be to Mt. 5:13 and parallels. Lamy translated as gubernator, presumably vocalizing the word as mallaḥa ‘sailor’; this, however, would go against the metre. It is very possible that this line is a deliberate allusion to Ephrem’s second madrasha on Faith, where the first half of stanza 3 reads ‘Blessed is the person who has become the salt of truth in this generation’.

generation: the allusion to Ephrem here suggests that this is the sense of dr’; the variant d’r’ in Add. 14,577 would mean ‘fight, struggle’, which, however, seems less suitable. See, for example, L. Hage, The Syriac Model Strophes and their Poetic Metres by the Maronite Patriarch Stephen Douayhi (Bibliothèque de l’Université Saint-Esprit XIV; 1987), p. 113; and his more detailed Musique Maronite. Textes VI: Les Strophes-Types Syriaques (Bibliothèque de l’Université Saint-Esprit XLIII; 2001), p.60 (where the Syrian Orthodox qolo title is given as aḥay ba-ktobe, the opening words of a madrasha variously attributed to Balai or Jacob of Serugh, edited by T. Lamy, Sancti Ephraem Syri Hymni et Sermones IV (Malines, 1902), cols 737– 46; Lamy, however, analyses the metre somewhat differently). 9

248

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

5. light: the reference will be to Mt. 5:14 and parallels.

7. gentle and kind (niḥa w-bassima): compare Mt. 11:29 ‘I am gentle (or: restful) and humble (niḥa w-makkika’ (which is the wording of line 70). For this theme, see especially G. Winkler, ‘Ein bedeutsamer Zusammenhang zwischen Erkenntnis und Ruhe in Mt 11:27–9’, Le Muséon 96 (1983), 267–326.

10. in the house singly: based on Ps. 68:7 ‘God causes the single one (iḥidaya) to sit in the house’. This Psalm verse was first associated with the monastic ideal by Eusebius in his Commentary on this verse (Patrologia Graeca 23, col. 689B). 11. Your yoke: Mt. 11:29. Only here is Christ evidently directly addressed.

{16} 12. that he is mortal: perhaps an allusion to Ephrem, Madrashe on Faith 3:7, ‘Blessed is the person who knows … and realizes that he is mortal and the son of a mortal’.

16. scattered his possessions: in the right way, in contrast to the Prodigal Son (Lk. 15:13), for whom the same verb is used, but with the addition ‘living flightily’.

22. who has been mute with discretion: perhaps an allusion to Ephrem, Madrashe on Faith 2:20, ‘Blessed the person who has become mute when Your birth is being investigated’. 24. loved his neighbour as himself: Lev. 19:18, Mt. 5:43.

29. a temple for God: based on 1 Cor. 3:16 (where, however, haykla is used). 30. dwelling for the Holy Spirit: also based on 1 Cor. 3:16. 33. Joseph: Gen. 39:8–9. 34. Moses: Ex. 4:10.

35. Elijah: although he is never described as a btula in the Biblical text, this subsequently became a standard epithet for him, especially in the context of the Transfiguration, where the virgin Elijah is sometimes balanced with the married Moses; this, however, does not yet feature in Ephrem’s references to the Transfiguration (or, it seems, elsewhere). In his On the Nativity 14:15, however, the term btula occurs shortly before mention of Elijah (stanza 16), rather implying an association. 37. rich: Abraham is here a model for hospitality, based on Gen. 18 (the visit of the three men/angels), contrasted with the Rich Man of the parable (Lk. 16:19–31), who looks to Abraham from Gehenna (Lk. 16:24). The parable is also referred to in the series of Makarisms in Sermones III.4, lines 653–6.

38. Lazarus: Luke 16.

44. rejected luxuries: like Daniel and the Three Young Men at the court of Nebuchadnezzar, Dan. 1:12–16.

50. this (earthly) abode. Lamy takes the sense very differently: ‘quae odivit spiritum cohabitationis’, but ‘umra does not have this sense. (In his text lhwn is a misprint for lhn).

{15}

20. ‘BLESSED IS THAT OLD AGE’

249

52. By oversight the line was omitted in Lamy’s edition. the gnon zabna is contrasted with the gnon nuhra of line 71 (in the case of both youthfulness and of old age, reference to the bridal chamber comes as the eleventh line). 53. polished its thought: compare Ephrem, Madrashe on the Church 36:2, where similar phraseology is used of the Virgin Mary.

54. crucified its limbs: perhaps based on Gal. 2:2 ‘I have been crucified with Christ’, where however zqif is used.

62. Lamy reads dkn‘t instead of ds’bt, and translates ‘venerabilem se praestitit’. Although the semkath is not clear, the following two letters are. 63, 66. The intended sense of these two lines is not entirely clear.

68. crown of Life/salvation: i.e. consisting in. In both the Old Syriac and the Peshitta Gospels Greek soteria is regularly rendered by ḥayye.

70. gentle and humble: Mt 10:29; compare line 7 above.

71. bridal chamber of light: this phrase is frequently found as an alternative to ‘the kingdom of heaven’; see ‘The Bridal Chamber of light: a distinctive feature of the Syriac liturgical tradition’, The Harp 18 (2005), 179–91. ‘Bridal chamber of light’ already occurs as an eschatological term in Ephrem, Madrashe on Paradise 7:24 and on the Fast 5:1.

75. rejuvenated: Lamy translates quae refrigerio gaudet, evidently taking the verb as being a denominative from ṭella ‘dew’, but this would require d-metṭalla, rather than dmetṭalya.

{18–21}

APPENDIX

Syriac text Add. 14,592, ff.55v–56v.

‫ܬܘܒ ܡܕܪܫܐ ܕܡܪܝ ܐܦܪܡ ܕܡܪܬܝܢܘܬܐ‬ .‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܕܡ� ܠܒܗ ܫܠܡ ܫܝܢܐ‬ .‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܕܗܘܐ ܥܝܪܐ ܒܟܘܠ ܥܕܢ‬ .‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܕܗܘܐ ܫܗܪܐ ܒܦܘܪܫܢܐ‬ .‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܕܗܘܐ ܡܠܚܐ ܒܗܢ ܕܪܐ‬ .‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܕܗܘܐ ܢܘܗܪܐ ܒܗܢ ܙܒܢܐ‬

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5

.‫ ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܕܗܘܐ ܫܠܝܐ ܘܫܬܝܩܐ‬.6 .‫ ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܕܗܘܐ ܢܝܚܐ ܘܒܣܝܡܐ‬.7 .‫ ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܕܥܒܕ ܘܐܠܦ ܕܐܬܦܩܕ‬.8 ̈ .‫ܕܕܒܒܬܗ‬ ‫ ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܕܢܟܦ ܚܝܪܐ‬.9 .‫ ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܕܝܬܒ ܒܒܝܬܐ ܝܚܝܕܐܝܬ‬.10

‫‪SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD‬‬

‫‪.11‬‬ ‫‪.12‬‬ ‫‪.13‬‬ ‫‪.14‬‬ ‫‪.15‬‬

‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܕܫܩܠ ܢܝܪܟ ܒܛܠܝܘܬܗ‪.‬‬ ‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܕܪܢܐ ܟܠܫܥ ܕܡܝܘܬܐ ܗܘ‪.‬‬ ‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܕܐܣܓܝ ̈‬ ‫ܙܘܕܘܗܝ ܒܛܠܝܘܬܗ‪.‬‬ ‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܕܗܘܐ ܡܝܬܐ ܒܚܝܘܬܗ‪.‬‬ ‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܕܪܢܐ ܟܠܫܥ ܕܚܙܘܩܐ ܗܘ‪.‬‬

‫‪.16‬‬ ‫‪.17‬‬ ‫‪.18‬‬ ‫‪.19‬‬ ‫‪.20‬‬

‫̈‬ ‫ܠܣܝܡܬܗ‪.‬‬ ‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܠܡܝܘܬܐ ܕܒܕܪ‬ ‫ܕܚܐܪ ̇‬ ‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܠܡܣܟܢܐ ̇‬ ‫ܠܗܘ ܐܬܪܐ‪.‬‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܕܩܕܝܫܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܕܡܛܐ ܠܛܘܒܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܕܫܠܝ ܙܘܥܐ ܕܗܕܡܘܗܝ‪.‬‬ ‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܕܗܘܐ ܒܬܘ� ܒܠܫܢܗ‪.‬‬

‫‪.21‬‬ ‫‪.22‬‬ ‫‪.23‬‬ ‫‪.24‬‬ ‫‪.25‬‬

‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܕܢܛܪ ܦܓܪܗ ܕ� ܛܘܠܫܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܕܗܘܐ ܚܪܫܐ ܒܦܘܪܫܢܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ̇‬ ‫ܕܪܚܡ ܠܡܪܗ ܘ�ܠܗܗ‪.‬‬ ‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܕܐܚܒ ܠܚܒܪܗ ܐܝܟ ܢܦܫܗ‪.‬‬ ‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܕܐܚܒ ̈‬ ‫ܥܝܕܐ ܕܢܟܦܘܬܐ‪.‬‬

‫‪26.‬‬ ‫‪.27‬‬ ‫‪.28‬‬ ‫‪.29‬‬ ‫‪.30‬‬

‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܕܣܢܐ ܢܩܦܐ ܕܪܦܝܘܬܐ‪.‬‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܠܨܝܡܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܕܗܘܐ ܚܒܪܐ‬ ‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܕܗܘܐ ܐܚܐ ̈‬ ‫ܠܢܨܝܚܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܕܗܘܐ ܢܘܣܐ �ܠܗܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܕܗܘܐ ܥܘܡܪܐ ܠܪܘܚ ܩܘܕܫܐ‪.‬‬

‫‪.31‬‬ ‫‪.32‬‬ ‫‪.33‬‬ ‫‪.34‬‬ ‫‪.35‬‬

‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܕܗܘܐ ܚܒܪܐ ܠܓܡܝ�ܐ‪.‬‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܠܩܕܡܝܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܕܗܘܐ ܕܘܡܝܐ‬ ‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܕܗܘܐ ܢܟܦܐ ܐܝܟ ܝܘܣܦ‪.‬‬ ‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܕܗܘܐ ܡܟܝܟ ܐܝܟ ܡܘܫܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܕܗܘܐ ܒܬܘ� ܐܝܟ ܐܠܝܐ‪.‬‬

‫‪.36‬‬ ‫‪.37‬‬ ‫‪.38‬‬ ‫‪.39‬‬ ‫‪.40‬‬

‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܕܢܟܪܝ ܘܐܣܠܝ ̈ܪܓܝܓܬܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܥܬܝܪܐ ̇‬ ‫ܕܚܐܪ ܒܐܒܪܗܡ‪.‬‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܣܟܢܐ ܕܚܐܪ ܒܠܥܙܪ‪.‬‬ ‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܙܕܝܩܐ ܕܡܟܝܟ ܒܬܪܥܝܬܗ‪.‬‬ ‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܚܛܝܐ ̇‬ ‫ܕܚܐܪ ܠܠܫܘܒܩܢܐ‪.‬‬

‫‪ .41‬ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܚܠܫܐ ܕܡܨܕ ܒܒܘܨ̈ܪܘܗܝ‪.‬‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܛܘܒܝܗ ܠܛܠܝܘܬܐ ܕܕܣܢܬ ܐ̈ܪܓܝܓܬܐ‪.‬‬ ‫‪.42‬‬

‫‪250‬‬

‫‪251‬‬

‫’‪20. ‘BLESSED IS THAT OLD AGE‬‬

‫̇‬ ‫ܛܘܒܝܗ ܠܛܠܝܘܬܐ ܕܕܚܪܬ ܒܦܪܕܝܣܐ‪.‬‬ ‫‪.43‬‬ ‫̇‬ ‫‪ .44‬ܛܘܒܝܗ ܠܛܠܝܘܬܐ ܕܢܟܪܝܬ ܠܦܘ̈ܪܦܥܐ‪.‬‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܛܘܒܝܗ ܠܛܠܝܘܬܐ ܕܩܢܬ ܙܗܝܪܘܬܐ‪.‬‬ ‫‪.45‬‬ ‫‪.46‬‬ ‫‪.47‬‬ ‫‪.48‬‬ ‫‪.49‬‬ ‫‪.50‬‬

‫ܠܗܕܡ ̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܝܗ‪.‬‬ ‫ܛܘܒܝܗ ܠܛܠܝܘܬܐ ܕܦܓܕܬ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܛܘܒܝܗ ܠܛܠܝܘܬܐ ܕܪܚܡܬ ܠܕܟܝܘܬܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܚܘܫ ̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܒܝܗ‪..‬‬ ‫ܛܘܒܝܗ ܠܛܠܝܘܬܐ ܕܕܫܬ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܛܘܒܝܗ ܠܛܠܝܘܬܐ ܕܐܚܒܬ ܠܢܩܕܘܬܐ‪.‬‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܛܘܒܝܗ ܠܛܠܝܘܬܐ ܕܣܢܬ ܠܗܢ ܥܘܡܪܐ‪.‬‬

‫‪.51‬‬ ‫‪.52‬‬ ‫‪.53‬‬ ‫‪.54‬‬ ‫‪.55‬‬

‫̈‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܠܓܐܘܬܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܛܘܒܝܗ ܠܛܠܝܘܬܐ ܕܣܢܬ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܛܘܒܝܗ ܠܛܠܝܘܬܐ ܕܣܢܬ ܓܢܘܢ ܙܒܢܐ‪.‬‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܡܚܫܒܬܗ‪.‬‬ ‫ܛܘܒܝܗ ܠܛܠܝܘܬܐ ܕܡܪܩܬ‬ ‫ܛܘܒܝܗ ܠܛܠܝܘܬܐ ܕܨܠܒܬ ̈‬ ‫ܠܗܕ ̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܡܝܗ‪.‬‬ ‫ܛܘܒܝܗ ܠܛܠܝܘܬܐ ܕܚܪܬ ̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܠܗܘ ܐܬܪܐ܇‬

‫‪.56‬‬ ‫‪.57‬‬ ‫‪.58‬‬ ‫‪.59‬‬ ‫‪.60‬‬

‫ܛܘܒܝܗ ܠܛܠܝܘܬܐ ܕܩܕܫܬ ܥܠܝܡܘ ̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܬܗ‪.‬‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܛܘܒܝܗ ܠܛܠܝܘܬܐ ܕܣܢܬ ܠܪܦܝܘܬܐ‪.‬‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܛܘܒܝܗ ܠܛܠܝܘܬܐ ܕܢܩܫܬ ܒܗܘ ܐܬܪܐ‪.‬‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܒܗܘ ܙܝܘܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܛܘܒܝܗ ܠܛܠܝܘܬܐ ܕܐܡܠܟܬ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܒܗܘ ܢܝܫܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܛܘܒܝܗ ܠܣܝܒܘܬܐ ܕܚܪܬ‬

‫‪.61‬‬ ‫‪.62‬‬ ‫‪.63‬‬ ‫‪.64‬‬ ‫‪.65‬‬

‫̇‬ ‫ܛܘܒܝܗ ܠܣܝܒܘܬܐ ܕܥܒܪܬ ܠܒܝܬ ܩܢܛܐ‪.‬‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܒܛܒܬܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܛܘܒܝܗ ܠܣܝܒܘܬܐ ܕܣܐܒܬ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܛܘܒܝܗ ܠܣܝܒܘܬܐ ܕܣܢܬ ܠܣܝܒܘܬܐ‪.‬‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܛܘܒܝܗ ܠܣܝܒܘܬܐ ܕܢܛܪܬ ܒܬܘܠܘܬܐ‪.‬‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܠܩܕܝܫܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܛܘܒܝܗ ܠܣܝܒܘܬܐ ܕܐܚܒܬ‬

‫‪.66‬‬ ‫‪.67‬‬ ‫‪.68‬‬ ‫‪.69‬‬ ‫‪.70‬‬

‫̇‬ ‫ܛܘܒܝܗ ܠܣܝܒܘܬܐ ܕܥܗܢܬ ܒܛܠܝܘܬܗ‪.‬‬ ‫̇‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܒܗܘ ܐܬܪܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܛܘܒܝܗ ܠܣܝܒܘܬܐ ܕܕܐܨܕܬ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܛܘܒܝܗ ܠܣܝܒܘܬܐ ܕܪܚܡܬ ܟܠܝܠ ̈‬ ‫ܚܝܐ‪.‬‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܠܒܘܣܡܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܛܘܒܝܗ ܠܣܝܒܘܬܐ ܕܪܚܡܬ‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܛܘܒܝܗ ܠܣܝܒܘܬܐ ܕܢܝܚܐ ܘܡܟܝܟܐ‪.‬‬

‫‪.71‬‬ ‫‪.72‬‬ ‫‪.73‬‬ ‫‪.74‬‬ ‫‪.75‬‬

‫̇‬ ‫ܛܘܒܝܗ ܠܣܝܒܘܬܐ ܕܗܘܬ ܓܢܘܢ ܢܘܗܪܐ‪.‬‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܛܘܒܝܗ ܠܣܝܒܘܬܐ ܕܡܬܓܝܐ ܒܥܕܝܢ‪.‬‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܛܘܒܝܗ ܠܣܝܒܘܬܐ ܕܡܬܦܪܦܥܐ ܒܪܘܡܐ‪.‬‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܛܘܒܝܗ ܠܣܝܒܘܬܐ ܕܪܘܙܐ ܒܢܘܚܡܐ‪.‬‬ ‫̇‬ ‫ܛܘܒܝܗ ܠܣܝܒܘܬܐ ܕܡܬܛܠܝܐ ܒܥܕܝܢ܀‬

‫‪SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD‬‬

‫‪252‬‬

‫ܫܠܡ ܡܕܪܫܐ ܕܡܪܝ ܐܦܪܡ ܕܡܪܬܝܢܘܬܐ‬

‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܕܗܘܐ ܥܢܘܝܐ ܐܝܟ ܣܒܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܕܣܢܐ ܠܥܠܡܐ ܐܝܟ ܣܒܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܕܒܣܪ ܘܣܢܐ ܠ�ܓܝܓܬܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܣܝܡ ܠܗ ܡܘܬܗ ܩܕܡ ̈‬ ‫ܥܝܢܘܗܝ‪.‬‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܠܡܣܟܢܐ‪.‬‬ ‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܕܪܚܡ ܘܝܗܒ‬ ‫ܛܘܒܘܗܝ ܠܡܢ ܕܦܬܚ ܬܪܥܗ ܠܣܢܝܩܐ‪.‬‬

‫‪Extra lines in Add. 14,577.‬‬ ‫‪after line 34:‬‬ ‫‪after line 40:‬‬

21 THE TRANSMISSION OF EPHREM’S MADRASH E IN THE SYRIAC LITURGICAL TRADITION * Since the year when the Twelfth International Conference on Patristic Studies meets happens to be the fortieth anniversary of the publication of the first of the late Dom Edmund Beck’s splendid edition of Ephrem's madrashe in the Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 1 it is perhaps not inappropriate to mark this occasion by offering the preliminary findings of a study of the transmission of these madrashe as a whole, paying particular attention here to what is left of them in festal hymnaries of the Syriac Churches today. The sources for our knowledge of the transmission of Ephrem’s madrashe down to the present day are essentially fivefold:

1. EARLY MANUSCRIPTS

A glance at any of Beck’s introductions to his editions will indicate that he made use of two different types of manuscripts, firstly those of the fifth and sixth centuries, where the madrashe cycles are normally preserved complete; and secondly, liturgical manuscripts of the ninth to thirteenth centuries, which preserve selections only. The latter category are discussed below, under (4). The early manuscripts, all now in either the Vatican or the British Library, comprise the following, using Beck’s sigla: A = Add. 12176, of 5th/6th century B = Vat. Syr.111, of AD 522

B = Add. 14627, of 6th/7th century

de Fide, c.Haereses, Carmina Nisibena. de Ecclesia, de Virginitate, de Fide, c.Haereses, de Paradiso. de Ieiunio, de Azymis, de Crucifixione, de Resurrectione.

Originally published in Studia Patristica 33 (1997), 490–505. H. de Fide, in CSCO 154–5 = Scr.Syri 73–4. Beck’s subsequent editions of Ephrem’s madrashe appeared in CSCO as follows: c.Haereses in CSCO 169–70 = Scr.Syri 76–7; de Paradiso and c.Julianum in CSCO 174–5 = Scr.Syri 78–9; de Nativitate and de Epiphania in CSCO 186–7 = Scr.Syri 82–3; de Ecclesia in CSCO 198–9 = Scr.Syri 84–5; Carmina Nisibena in CSCO 218–9, 240–1 = Scr.Syri 92–3, 102–3; de Virginitate in CSCO 223–4 = Scr.Syri 94–5; de Ieiunio in CSCO 246–7 = Scr.Syri 106–7; de Azymis, de Crucifixione, de Resurrectione in CSCO 248–9 = Scr.Syri 108–9; de Abraham Qidunaya and de Juliano Saba in CSCO 322–3 = Scr.Syri140–1. *

1

255

256

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

(Unfortunately Beck employed the siglum B for two different manuscripts; Add.14627 will be referred to below as Bbis).

{491}

C = Vat. Syr.113, of AD 552 D = Add. 14571, of AD 519

F = Add.14574, of 5th/6th century 2 G = Vat. Syr.112, of AD 551

R = Add.14572, of 6th century

U = Add.14635, of 6th century

de Fide.

de Nativitate (16), de Ieiunio, de Azymis (2), de Crucifixione,

and small groups from de Ecclesia, C.Nisibena, de Fide; then de Paradiso and c.Julianum. de Ecclesia, c.Haereses.

de Paradiso, de Nativitate (18). C.Nisibena. de Ecclesia.

Several of these old manuscripts have suffered damage over the course of the centuries (B is one of those which fell into the Nile while being transported from the Syrian Monastery in the Nitrian Desert to the Vatican Library); this means that in several places where the entire tradition hangs on the witness of a single manuscript we have incomplete texts. Thus C.Nisibena 22–4, and much of 25 and the beginning of 26 are lost; most of de Azymis 6–11 are missing; much of de Virginitate 23–30 and 38– 40 is badly damaged, and there are many gaps in de Ecclesia.

2. PHILOXENUS’S FLORILEGIUM 3

At the end of his Discourses against Habbib Philoxenus provided a Florilegium consisting of 227 short quotations arranged in five sections. The work is an early one and can be dated c.482/4. The excerpts in the Florilegium all derive from Greek patristic writers, with one exception, Ephrem. Ephrem, with 105 excerpts, is in fact better represented than any other writer. In a minority of cases Philoxenus has given an indication of the source of his quotation, and, as far as the madrashe are concerned, we have the following:

33 ‘From the volume (penqita) against the Jews and Doctrines’. The quotation remains

unidentified.

73 ‘From the madrashe of the Church’. The quotation can be identified as de Ecclesia 9:8. 75 ‘From the madrashe of the Nativity’. The quotation represents de Nativitate 11:6.

Fragments (from the Syrian Monastery in the Nitrian Desert) containing parts of Eccl. 37–8, now in the New York Public Library (21.148.11) may well belong to this manuscript. (At 37:6, line 3, the fragment reads ‫ ܠܟܐܦܐ‬instead of ‫)ܠܙܐܦܐ‬. 3 The Florilegium is edited by F. Graffin in Patrologia Orientalis 41,1 (1982); see also his study ‘Le florilège patristique de Philoxène de Mabboug’, in [I] Symposium Syriacum (OCA 197; 1974), pp. 267–90. 2

21. THE TRANSMISSION OF EPHREM’S MADRASHE

257

207 ‘From the madrashe of the Church’. The quotation is from de Virginitate 26:3 (see below). {492}

219 ‘From the volume of martyrs of Nisibis’. Unidentified.

223 ‘From the madrashe on Julian Saba’. The quotation represents de Juliano Saba 19:15. 224 ‘From the qala (melody) of Kallat Malka [the King’s Bride]’. 4 Unidentified.

Philoxenus provides the earliest datable indication that Ephrem’s madrashe circulated in cycles whose titles correspond fairly closely with those of the early manuscripts and familiar today from Beck’s editions. The correspondence is not, however, complete, for it appears, not only from the evidence of Philoxenus, but also from that of the Sinai Index (= (3) below) and some quotations from Ephrem in other dogmatic florilegia, that two cycles of madrashe under the title On the Church were circulating in the fifth and sixth century, one of which corresponded to our de Ecclesia, and the other to our de Virginitate. 5 The presence of the three unidentified excerpts suggests that the cycles that have come down to us do not represent the full extent of Ephrem's madrashe collections, something that will become even clearer when we consider the Sinai Index. In fact, a considerable number of the other excerpts, for which no specific source is given, remain unidentified, 6 and it is likely that these too derive from lost madrashe cycles.

3. SINAI INDEX OF QALE

Sinai Syr. 10 contains an elaborate index to the qale (melodies) of Ephrem’s madrashe in the course of which a considerable amount of information about the way in which the madrashe were transmitted is given. The text, which was edited 7 and studied 8 by A. de Halleux, probably goes back to the sixth century, although the manuscript itself belongs to a few centuries later. In this notice the anonymous author seeks to classify the 45 qale employed in the course of nine volumes (penqyata) of Kallat malka is the qala for several surviving madrashe (e.g. de Virginitate 1–3), but it was also the title for an entire (lost) volume in the Sinai Index, and it will presumably be from this volume that the excerpt comes. The name of the qala derives from the first words of a madrasha printed in T.Lamy, Sancti Ephraem Syri Hymni et Sermones, III (Malines, 1889), col.959. 5 Thus the florilegium Add.12155 f.75v quotes de Virginatate 1:1 as belonging to ‘the madrashe of the Church’. 6 A few of the excerpts left unidentified by Graffin can in fact be identified; thus no.147 = de Ecclesia 13:23; 200 = Sermo de Fide III, 349–52 (but the last two lines of the excerpt remain unidentified); 204 = Sermo I.iii.345–8; 214 = de Ieiunio 5:6 (mid verse). 7 ‘Une clé pour les hymnes d’Éphrem dans le ms. Sinai syr.10’, Le Muséon 85 (1972), pp.171–99. 8 ‘La transmission des hymnes d’Éphrem d’après les ms. Sinai syr. 10, f.165v-178r’, in [I] Symposium Syriacum (OCA 197; 1974), pp.21–63. 4

258

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

Ephrem’s madrashe; 9 besides quoting a considerable {493} number of opening verses from madrashe, 10 the author also provides the number of madrashe in each penqita. For our present purpose, the following information concerning the nine volumes can be summarized: I. Volume (penqita) of the Nativity (59 madrashe) specified: Nat. 5, 26, 22, 24, 25; Epiph. 8, 9.

II. Volume of the Fast (67)

specified: Ieiun. 1; Azym. 3; Nat.2; two unknown; Lamy IV.746.

III. Volume of Nisibis (77)

specified: Nis.4, 35, 52, 69, 71.

IV. Volume of `the King's Bride', against the Jews (66) specified: Lamy III, 959; unknown.

V. Volume of the Church (52)

specified: Eccl.1,2; Lamy III.695; Eccl.7. 13. 15. 23. 26. 46.

VI. Volume of the Church (52) specified: Virg. 8, 31, 39, 42.

VII. Volume of Faith (87)

specified: Fid.1, 10, 66, 80.

VIII. Volume against Erroneous Doctrines and Paradise (56 + 15) specified: Haer. 17, 25, 56; Par. 1.

IX. Volume of the Confessors and Departed (67) specified: two unknown; Jul.Saba 18; ER VI,276.

A classification of Ephrem’s metres and their qale is given in my ‘Materials for the study of the writings of St Ephrem’, due to appear one day in Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt (the text was submitted in 1978). Classifications of the qale for madrashe found in the liturgical tradition can be found in M.Breydy, Kult, Dichtung und Musik im Wochenbrevier der Syro-Maroniten, III Rishaiqole (Kobayath, Lebanon, 1979), and in L. Hage (ed.), Les strophes syriaques et leurs metres poétiques du patriarche maronite Étienne Douayhi (Bibliothèque de l’Université Saint Esprit, Kaslik, 13; 1986), with English translation The Syriac Model Strophes and the Poetic Meters, by the Maronite Patriarch Stephen Douayhi (Bibliothèque de l’Université Saint Esprit, Kaslik, 14; 1987). 10 These allow some gaps to be filled in where Beck’s early witness is defective (notably for Virg.39:1–2 (see Appendix, (1)), and at the same time provide early testimony of attribution to Ephrem for some madrashe derived from FM which were printed by Lamy (see below). 9

21. THE TRANSMISSION OF EPHREM’S MADRASHE

259

“Total: 618 madrashe” (in fact 598!).

The following points should be noted: - The size of Volume I is much larger than any of the surviving collections of de Nativitate (the separation into de Nativitate and de Epiphania is certainly secondary, and several of the present de Epiphania cannot, on internal grounds, be by Ephrem). - Volume II is again much larger than de Ieiunio and the Paschal cycles. The presence of de Nativitate 2 is puzzling. 11 - Volume III corresponds in the number of madrashe exactly to the Carmina Nisibena. - Volume IV perhaps represents two different elements, listed separately by Philoxenus. This cycle is evidently very largely lost. - Both volumes V and VI bear the title ‘of the Church’ but on the basis of the texts quoted the former evidently corresponds to our de Ecclesia, while the latter {494} to our de Virginitate. This is a feature which we have already encountered in connection with Philoxenus’ Florilegium. - Volume VII corresponds in the number of madrashe exactly to our de Fide. - Volume VIII corresponds exactly to our c.Haereses and de Paradiso. - Volume IX will be another cycle which is now evidently largely lost.

If one compares the contents of these nine volumes with the contents of the surviving early manuscripts, one finds that there are four exact matches: Bbis = vol. II; C = vol. VII; R = vol. III; and U = vol. V. A, B, D, F, G, however, are all considerably bigger. Thus A corresponds to vols.VII, VIII and III; B to vols. V-VIII; D has elements from I, II, V, III, VII, VIII; F corresponds to V and VIII; and G to VIII (in part) and I. From all this, it is clear that, although some cycles seem to have been very stable in size, the way in which they were collected into volumes could vary considerably. The evidence of both Philoxenus’s Florilegium and the Sinai Index indicates that certain cycles current in the fifth and sixth century are either lost, or only come down to us in a very depleted form. Furthermore, as we have seen from (1) above, even in some of the cycles that do come down to us in early manuscripts, there are quite a number of serious gaps, due to damage in the surviving manuscripts. Can any of these losses be remedied from the mediaeval liturgical manuscripts? Some provisional answers to this question will emerge in the course of the following sections (4) and (5).

4. MEDIEVAL LITURGICAL MANUSCRIPTS.

Beck made use of a number of early Syrian Orthodox liturgical manuscripts dating from the eighth/ninth to the thirteenth century; 12 using his sigla, these are: For this, see de Halleux, ‘La transmission’, p.40. Beck also uses three manuscripts containing dogmatic florilegia which provide some citations from Ephrem (his S = Add.17214, of 7th century; T = Add.17191, of 9th/10th 11 12

260

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

E = Add.17141, of 8th/9th century H = Add.14501, of 11th century

J = Add.14506, of 9th, and 9th/10th century K = Add.14509, of 11th century L = Add.17245, of 13th century M = Add.14515, of AD 893

N = Add.14520, of 8th/9th century O = Add.12146, of AD 1007

P = Add.14512, of 10th century V = Vat. syr.93, of 9th century.

Reference to Beck’s apparatus will immediately highlight the fact that these manuscripts never provide the complete text of any madrasha, but simply give a few stanzas at a time, not necessarily in their correct sequence. Thus, by way of example, E provides excerpts from c.Haereses in two different places in the course of its contents, and the following is typical of the pattern of stanzas that it provides: c.Haereses 11:1–3; 12:1–11; 13:1–8, 10–12; 14:2–8, 10–15; 17:1–5, 7, 10 etc. The process of selection can in fact be taken back to the sixth century, and to Beck’s manuscript D, where, for example we find, beside some complete cycles, several where only a small number of madrashe are given; thus from the cycle de Fide D provides only de Fide 10–12 (following C.Nisibena 39), 14, 21, and 23 (followed by de Ecclesia 29 – its second occurrence in this manuscript!). In contrast, however, to the practice of the mediaeval liturgical manuscripts D gives the text of a madrasha in its entirety, and not just select stanzas. Even though the liturgical collections (mostly festal hymnaries) provide us only with excerpted stanzas, their importance can be seen, for example, from Beck’s edition of de Virginitate where his base manuscript (B) is often defective, and so has to be filled out with the help of the mediaeval manuscripts E J K L O and P. Beck only made a rather limited use of these liturgical manuscripts, and a wider use of them would undoubtedly prove worthwhile, as will become apparent from (5) below, where the witness of their printed descendants is discussed. Before turning to the relevant printed liturgical books, however, two basic caveats need to be mentioned. Attributions in the mediaeval liturgical manuscripts must be regarded with considerable scepticism. Not surprisingly, many madrashe which on internal grounds cannot possibly be by Ephrem nonetheless get attributed to him. More unexpected, {495}

century; and Add. 12155 of 8th century). Several further early florilegia with citations from Ephrem survive; I hope to discuss these on a future occasion.

21. THE TRANSMISSION OF EPHREM’S MADRASHE

261

however, is the fact that on occasion genuine material by Ephrem can lurk under another poet’s name; thus, for example, in Add.14520 (Beck’s N) C.Nisibena 43 is to be found (f.42r) attributed to Jacob of Serugh! Secondly, isolated stanzas from genuine madrashe by Ephrem can be found incorporated into later hymns, providing them with a new context that is very different from that of the original madrasha. An interesting example of this is provided in the tenth-century Add.14611, ff.67v–68r, entitled ‘Soghitha of the holy Mar Ephrem, to the qala “Paradise”’. What we have here is an eight-stanza poem where the first two and last three stanzas are by a later unknown author who, for his verses 3–5, reuses stanzas from Ephrem’s cycle de Paradiso. The resulting hymn reads: 1. Blessed is the person who has carried, as keys upon his shoulders, the toil of his (ascetic) conduct, and the course of his service, and has fearlessly attained to the very gates of Paradise which have recognized him there and allowed him to enter: (thus) he has mingled with the choir of the upright and just, and rejoiced in that glory that (belongs) to the angels and spiritual beings.

2. Believe this firmly, O discerning (reader), without any hesitation, that the day is awaiting us when we shall call to mind and groan as we blame ourselves and feel revulsion for our actions as we repent of all that we have listened to and so been neglectful in our conduct, and we (find ourselves) cast into torment, having gained remorse and suffering that has no end. {496}

3. [= de Par.6:16] There, manifest and fair to the eyes of the mind are the coveted banquest of the just who summon us to be their companions and brothers, their fellow members. Let us not be deprived, my brethren, of their company; let us be their kindred, or failing that, their neighbours, and if not in their own dwelling, at least round about their bowers.

4. [= de Par.7:23] They know no worry, for they have no suffering; they have no fear, for no snare awaits them; they have no adversary, for they have passed through the contest. [a line and a half have evidently been inadvertently omitted here] 13 For their warfare is over, and they have taken up their crowns; they have found rest in their (new) abodes, and rejoiced in their inheritance.

5. [= de Par.7:24] I saw that place, my brethren, and I sat down and wept for myself and for those like me, at how my days had reached their fill, dissipated one by one and faded out, stolen away without my noticing; remorse seizes hold of me because I have lost

The omission has been partially remedied by the addition of ‘and rejoiced in their inheritance’ at the end. 13

262

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD crown, name and glory, robe and bridal chamber of light. How blessed is that person who of that heavenly table is held worthy!

6. That day will take place on which everyone is contrite, feeling revulsion for himself and blaming his conduct as he weeps tears of suffering – all to no profit, for he that does not repent here (on earth) will find his repentence there all to no profit, for it is a place that does not accept that the wicked should repent there. 7. Prayer and supplication, weeping and groans that do not come at their proper time will never be accepted, for there is a time for everything, as it is written (Eccles.3:1). Alas for him who (only) weeps yonder - weeping that is to no profit, tears that are useless. Grant me, Lord, to repent here and be accepted.

8. Quaking and terror grip hold of many as they are on the point of departing to meet (their) God when He is revealed at the end, in order to judge creation; there all flesh stands in fright. Blessed is the person who face is not covered with shame at that time, and who is to be seen (standing) without fear before the throne of the Judge.

By being placed in a new moralizing context, with its warnings about the Last Judgement, the genuine stanzas of Ephrem are given quite different associations from those of their original context. {497}

5. THE PRINTED FESTAL HYMNARIES

Madrashe, quite often specifically attributed to Ephrem, feature in a number of different printed liturgical books of the various Syriac Churches, but nowhere more so than in the festal hymnaries covering the entire liturgical year. For these we have in the West Syriac liturgical tradition two main printed editions in current use, the seven volume Syrian Catholic edition of the Fenqitho (< Penqita < Greek πινακίδιον), printed at the Dominican Press in Mosul (1886–1896), and the three-volume Syrian Orthodox edition of the same work, printed at Pampakuda in Kerala (1962–1963). The former is cited here as FM and the latter as FP. In the Fenqitho madrashe regularly feature in the Night Office (Lilyo) for Sundays and feasts. In FP the number of stanzas given is normally much less than what is to be found in FM; nevertheless, although FM and FP represent the same liturgical book, there is remarkably little overlap as far as the choice of madrashe is concerned, and so FP provides excerpts from a great many madrashe that are not represented in FM. The corresponding liturgical books in the East Syriac tradition are the threevolume editions of the Ḥudra edited by P. Bedjan (Breviarium iuxta ritum syrorum orientalium id est Chaldaeorum; Rome, 1886–7, repr. 1938; Chaldean) and by T. Darmo (Ḥudra; Trichur, Kerala, 1960–1962; Church of the East). The former is cited here as BC and the latter as H. Use of madrashe is much more sparse in the East Syriac

21. THE TRANSMISSION OF EPHREM’S MADRASHE

263

Ḥudra, and the number of stanzas given is normally only three (though sometimes these in fact represent six stanzas in Beck's editions). In general H contains more than BC, although there is a great deal of material which they have in common. In these liturgical books by far the most extensive collection of madrashe is provided in FM, where some 500 madrashe are to be found in the course of the seven volumes; furthermore, nearly half of these are specifically attributed to Ephrem. On the surface, this would seem to offer a very significant source of knowledge for Ephrem’s madrashe, and already shortly after the publication of FM T.J. Lamy did indeed make use of some of this material in volumes III and IV of his Sancti Ephraem Syri Hymni et Sermones (Malines, 1889, 1902); furthermore, some of these madrashe taken by Lamy from FM already feature in the Sinai Index (see table to (3), above). In more recent years both J. Slim 14 {498} and (especially) J. Gribomont 15 have drawn attention to the possibility of recovering lost Ephremic texts in FM; in particular, they were able to restore from madrashe in FM the text of a number of stanzas which were incomplete in Beck’s edition due to damage in his sixth-century manuscript(s) (see (2) and (3) in Appendix). Gribomont went on to suggest that several of the madrashe de Azymis which are lost in Beck’s manuscript B could in fact be recovered from FM. As will become clear from the discussion below, these two aspects, the recovery of the full text of single stanzas, and the recovery of complete lost madrashe, need to be kept separate; in particular, before one considers the possibility that entire madrashe that are lost in the sixth-century manuscripts might be recovered from FM (or from the medieval liturgical manuscripts to which its text goes back), it is essential to learn what happens in FM (and the other printed liturgical texts) to those of Ephrem’s madrashe which we do have preserved in early manuscripts. Gribomont already made an excellent start in identifying genuine Ephremic material in FM for the Paschal season, concentrating on the cycle de Azymis. Much more such material can be found among the madrashe for the season of the Nativity, and it is mainly from this period of the liturgical year that the following examples, designed to illustrate the fate of genuine Ephremic material in the liturgical tradition, are taken. (a) The opening stanza (FM II, p.476) of one of the madrashe for Lilyo at the Nativity identifies it as de Nativitate 5 in Beck’s edition, but what is given is not the whole of the madrasha but a mosaic of stanzas derived from four different madrashe from this cycle; thus we have the sequence Nat.5:1–3; 7:8; 5:4,7; 7:5; 5:12,19; 6:8–10; 5:13,6; 7:2–4; 8:10; 5:8. This happens to be a particularly dramatic case, but it is by ‘Hymne I de s.Ephrem sur la Résurrection’, L’Orient Syrien 12 (1967), pp. 505–14. Slim in fact located it through Lamy’s reprinting of the text in FM among the Hymni Dispersi (all from FM) in his vol. IV (cols 745–50). 15 ‘La tradition liturgique des hymnes pascales de s.Éphrem’, Parole de l'Orient 4 (1973), pp. 191–246. 14

264

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

no means unusual to find such a mosaic of stanzas taken from different madrashe in the same cycle. (b) Another madrasha for the Nativity (FM II, p.479) is one of those which do not bear any attribution to Ephrem; nevertheless its opening stanza identifies it as de Nativitate 1:1. This time it turns out that all the stanzas are from the same de Nativitate 1, but there are many gaps (Nat.1 happens to be a very long madrasha): thus what we have in FM is stanzas 1–3, 6–7, 10, 14, 61, 90 and 94. A different selection of stanzas from Nat.1 is to be found later on in FM II, this time not in a madrasha, but in a baʿota/boʿuto ending Lilyo for the days after the Nativity (FM II, p.571, with stanzas 62, 82, 69, 77, 83, 84a, 85b). (c) A further madrasha (FM II, p.480) for Lilyo of the Nativity that is anonymous in FM also turns out to contain some genuine Ephrem, namely de Nativitate 2:1,4 and 8. Between Nat.2:4 and 8, however, we find an extra stanza of unknown origin; and again, following Nat.2:8, there are two further {499} otherwise unknown stanzas. This intrusion into genuine Ephremic material of stanzas of later unknown origin is in fact rather common in FM. (d) In the examples cited so far the madrashe in FM have opened with the first stanza of one of Ephrem’s madrashe, rendering their identification relatively simple. In quite a number of cases, however, the opening stanza in FM is not the opening stanza in the madrasha by Ephrem from which it draws. Thus a madrasha at Lilyo for Palm Sunday (FM IV, p.801) opens with de Resurrectione 2:2 (the remaining three stanzas correspond to stanzas 7, 3 and 8 of Res.2). (e) Genuine Ephrem stanzas may be hidden away in madrashe the rest of which are probably of later date. Thus de Resurrectione 1:1 (already identified by J.Slim) features as stanza 9 in a madrasha for the Ascension (FM VI, p.163); similarly de Ecclesia 20:11–12 feature as stanzas 4 and 5 of a madrasha for the Nativity of John the Baptist (FM II, pp. 209). We have already observed a similar case in the soghitha attributed to Ephrem in Add.14611. 16 (f) Isolated stanzas from two different cycles of Ephrem’s madrashe may be found brought together in a madrasha in FM. Thus a madrasha for Lilyo on the Third Sunday after the Resurrection (FM VI, p.107) opens with de Fide 36:1, while stanza 3 is derived from de Resurrectione 1:7 (the remaining nine stanzas are of unknown origin).

A similar fate met an anonymous madrasha preserved in a sixth-century manuscript and published in Oriens Christianus 64 (1980), pp. 48–64: the eleventh stanza resurfaces as the first stanza of a madrasha for the Resurrection in FP III, p.80, while stanza 12 turns up in the course of a madrasha for the Fifth Sunday after the Feast of the Cross in FM VII, p. 275 (also in Lamy, IV, cols 759–67, stanza 11; this madrasha in Lamy’s edition is in fact a combination of three different madrashe in FM VII!). 16

21. THE TRANSMISSION OF EPHREM’S MADRASHE

265

A number of different lessons can be learnt from these six examples taken from FM (similar ones can equally be found in FP), 17 in particular the following. First and foremost, one cannot hope for the preservation in FM (or FP, BC and H) of complete lost madrashe by Ephrem, even if we could identify them as such, e.g. by means of an incipit for a lost madrasha given in Philoxenus’s Florilegium or in the Sinai Index. Secondly, the attributions in FM are totally unreliable: not only do many madrashe which on internal grounds cannot possibly be by Ephrem get attributed to him, but conversely, some genuine Ephrem material may feature as anonymous. Thirdly, the selection of stanzas in the liturgical books may not begin at the beginning of one of Ephrem’s genuine madrashe; furthermore, the genuine stanzas will often be drastically reordered and/or interspersed with stanzas of a very different origin. {500} Fourthly, the search for genuine Ephremic material should not be confined just to the madrashe in FM (and FP), for it may also feature elsewhere, in particular in the baʿawata. From all this it can readily be seen that the evidence of FM and the other printed liturgical books (and likewise, the manuscript tradition upon which they are based) needs to be handled with considerable care. Furthermore, the initial identification of what genuine Ephremic material is preserved in these books is far from a straightforward task. Not surprisingly, those that have been identified so far derive largely from Ephrem’s Nativity and Paschal cycles, but the liturgical use of stanzas from his madrashe is by no means just confined to these cycles. What is needed before a complete inventory of genuine Ephrem stanzas preserved in these liturgical books can be made is a systematic search which can be best undertaken qala by qala. To date I have only had the opportunity to investigate the situation for a small number of qale, but among them is the qala entitled Pardaysa which happens to be used frequently both by Ephrem and in FM and FP; the results of this preliminary examination are not without interest, though whether they are typical or not remains to be seen: in madrashe by Ephrem preserved in the early manuscripts there are some 330 stanzas using this metre; of these, only 33 feature scattered here and there in FM and FP (it should also be noted that, out of several hundred stanzas in the metre in FM and FP, they only have 25 stanzas in common, of which only a couple are derived from Ephrem). Provided, however, these caveats are kept in mind, the witness of the liturgical books is nonetheless important and of value. As was mentioned earlier, Slim and Gribomont were able to restore, with the help of FM, material lost through damage

From the fate of alphabetic acrostics in FP, where only alternate stanzas are given, it is evident that this edition must have used, among its sources, a manuscript designed for one half only of a choir. 17

266

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

in the early manuscripts. There is certainly more that could be done along these lines, 18 as the following two examples show. Several stanzas in de Ecclesia 21 are badly damaged and have text missing in Beck's edition, based on the single surviving early manuscript (B). A systematic search through madrashe in FM and FP using the same metre (qala: Pardaysa) locates the use of stanzas 4 and 5 in a madrasha for Lilyo on the First Sunday after Pentecost (FM VI, pp. 267–8), and of stanza 5 in a madrasha for Lilyo on the Commemoration of St Thomas (FM VI, pp. 638–9). Both these madrashe in FM in fact nicely illustrate several of the features to which attention was drawn above (a) – (f); thus the first consists of eight stanzas, of which the first and fourth are otherwise unknown, while the second is Nat.3:21, the third is a variation on Fid.46:12, the fifth and sixth are Fid.40:2–3, and the seventh and eighth are Eccl.21:5 and 4. That for the commemoration of St Thomas {501} contains six stanzas of which the first two are otherwise unknown, the third is Par.6:19, the fourth Fid.47:11, the fifth Fid.48:10, and the sixth Eccl.21:5. With the help of these two madrashe in FM it is possible to restore the lost last line of Eccl.21:4, and the missing parts of 21:5 (though some textual problems remain, for which see the Appendix, (4)). As a second example I take an instance from the East Syriac Ḥudra, 19 where among the more restricted number of madrashe preserved several can identified as deriving from Ephrem’s genuine works. The first of the three stanzas of the madrasha sung on the Sixth Sunday of Lent (Ḥudra II, p.381) can be identified as de Ecclesia 6:1–2, and the following two stanzas correspond to Eccl.6:3–4 and 5,7. The inclusion of stanza 5 is fortunate, since this is badly damaged in Beck’s manuscript B, and so, thanks to H, we are able now to read it in its complete form (see Appendix, (5)). The liturgical tradition of madrashe is not only to be found of use where the early manuscripts are defective, for on occasion they may provide a reading that is superior to the text found in the early manuscripts. Several examples could be cited from Beck’s editions, and further use of this resource would undoubtedly throw up more examples. Here, by way of illustration, I cite a single case: the anonymous madrasha for Lilyo of the Saturday of the Week of Rest (FM V, p.454) in fact proves to consist of de Azymis 16:1, 4, an unknown stanza, 7, 8, and another unknown stanza. Az. 16:7 in Beck’s edition (based solely on B here) reads ‘The fragrance of His living (being) flew (‫ )ܦܪܚ‬in Sheol’, whereas the text in FM speaks much more appropriately of this fragrance as having ‘wafted’ (‫ )ܦܚ‬in Sheol. For a different (and in my view questionable) approach, see M. Breydy, ‘Une nouvelle méthode pour constater l’originalité des hymnes syriaques. Compléments au sujet des différentes versions d’Éphrem’, in M. Macuch, C. Muller-Kessler and B.G. Fragner (eds), Studia Semitica necnon Iranica R.Macuch…Dedicata (Wiesbaden, 1989), pp. 33–51. 19 For the identification of material from among the madrashe in BC, H. Hussman, ‘Madrasche und Seblatha: Repertorienuntersuchungen zu den Hymnen Ephräms des Syrers’, Acta Musicologica 48 (1976), pp. 132–3. 18

21. THE TRANSMISSION OF EPHREM’S MADRASHE

***

267

It will be apparent from what has been said above that we can only hope to recover lost Ephremic material with a high degree of certainty when this concerns single stanzas for which part of the text is preserved in the early manuscripts so that the stanza in question can be identified as genuinely from Ephrem. This is not to deny that many other stanzas in FM, FP, BC and H, may not also be taken from madrashe genuinely by Ephrem, but which have otherwise been lost; for these, however, the criteria for identifying them as genuine Ephrem will solely be stylistic, and so necessarily of a much more subjective character. Quite a number of such stanzas which have an ‘Ephremic ring’ about them can be found in the liturgical books and Gribomont has conveniently collected those which could be lost stanzas from the cycle de Azymis (though our experience {502} of what has happened to Ephrem’s madrashe that we know from early manuscripts should warn us that these will not represent complete madrashe, and that the stanzas are quite likely to be in a different sequence from that of the lost original). By way of conclusion I give a translation of a madrasha in the Ḥudra (II, pp.476–7 = BC II, p. 351) which likewise gives the impression of preserving genuine Ephremic material. Here, although the content would suit de Azymis, the qala (Pardaysa) is not one used in that cycle, and so, if the stanzas are genuinely Ephrem’s, they must derive from a different cycle of madrashe. The fact that the second and third stanzas are also preserved in the West Syriac liturgical tradition (FM VI, p. 374, featuring as stanzas 1–2) certainly supports the idea that this is from an early madrasha, whether or not it is genuinely by Ephrem. 1. In the symbol of the Lamb was hidden the symbol of our salvation, and in the blood of animals was marked out the dissolution of our wickedness. And if a silent (animal) brought forgiveness to those endowed with speech, how much more shall the Living Blood sanctify us and wipe out, through His Passion, the bill of our debts, we thereby receiving, through His renewal, liberation from death.

2. Through the sacrifice of the silent (lamb) was depicted the image of the Living One, and in the slaughter of the dumb (creature) is the resemblance of the Eloquent One whose blood is living blood, giving freedom to creation: it is like a herald in all things of the sacrifice of the Eloquent One who brings forgiveness of debst and clothes mortal beings in garments of forgiveness. 3. Along the path of the symbol of the lamb did the True Lamb travel, and it arrived at the sacrifice, confirming the image, so as to give liberation of Life to the race of mortal beings, to repay, by means of His death, the debt which his companions had incurred at the transgression of the commandment, showing ingratitude to the Creator with regard to keeping His commandments.

268

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

***

From this discussion, it should have become evident that the witness of the medieval liturgical tradition and of the dependent printed liturgical books is important but at the same time limited. While there is certainly ample room for further exploration and exploitation of this resource, one thing is absolutely evident: without the fifthand sixth-century manuscripts we would not be able to read any of Ephrem’s wonderful poems in their complete form, for all that we would have would be excerpts which often give the stanzas in the wrong sequence, and intermingled with stanzas by later authors. This situation in fact also applies to a great deal of other early Syriac literature, whether to original {503} authors such as Aphrahat, or to early translations of Greek patristic writings, the vast majority of which only come down to us today in very early manuscripts. That these early manuscripts have survived at all is due to their having been preserved over the centuries in the dry Egyptian climate of the Nitrian Desert, where they were housed in the library of the Monastery of the Syrians there prior to the acquisition of large numbers of them by the Vatican Library in the eighteenth and the British Museum in the nineteenth century. 20 The man who was chiefly responsible for building up this remarkable library was the abbot Moses of Nisibis, 21 who returned from tax business in Baghdad in 932, laden with manuscripts that were already several centuries old (among which we know to have been Vatican syr. 112 and 113, Beck’s G and C); accordingly, by way of conclusion, we can echo the words of the scribe from that monastery who, at the end of a manuscript 22 he copied in 933/4, informs us that it was written ‘in the days of our pride and the adornment of the entire holy Church, Mar Moses, abbot of this monastery’.

APPENDIX

Texts of supplements from the printed liturgical texts to damaged stanzas in Beck’s editions. In the following texts the words underlined are supplied from the printed liturgical texts. {504}

(1) de Virginitate 39:2 = Sinai Index, ed. de Halleux, pp. 182–3.

̈ ̈ ‫ܐܠܦܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܢܦܫܬܐ‬ ̈ �‫ܒܓܠ‬ ‫ܕܒܝܫܬܐ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܕܣܢܝܬܐ‬ ‫ܠܣܝܡܬܐ ܒܝܡܐ‬ ‫ܐܘܒܕ‬ For the significance of these acquisitions for the history of Syriac studies in Europe see my ‘The development of Syriac studies’, in K.J. Cathcart (ed.), The Edward Hincks Bicentenary Lectures (Dublin, 1994), pp. 94–113, esp. 98–104. 21 On him see especially J. Leroy, ‘Moise de Nisibe’, [I] Symposium Syriacum (OCA 197, 1974), pp. 457–70. 22 Now British Library Add.14525. 20

‫‪269‬‬

‫‪21. THE TRANSMISSION OF EPHREM’S MADRASHE‬‬

‫̈‬ ‫ܠܓܙܝܗܝܢ‬ ‫ܐܢܬ ܗܘ ܢܚܬܬ ܘܗܘܝܬ ܠܡܐܢܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܫܘܪܐ ܠܥܘܬ̈ܪܝܗܝܢ ܟܐܐ ܒܓܠܠܝܗܝܢ‬ ‫ܡܫܦܐ ̈‬ ‫ܫܒܝܠܝܗܝܢ‬ ‫‪(2) de Resurrectione 1:1 = FM VI, pp. 163.‬‬

‫ܐܬܐ ܠܢ ܐܡܪܐ ܡܢ ܒܝܬ ܕܘܝܕ‬ ‫ܟܗܢܐ ܘܟܘܡܪܐ ܡܢ ܐܒܪܗܡ‬ ‫ܗܘܐ ܠܢ ܐܡܪܐ ܗܘܐ ܠܢ ܟܘܡܪܐ‬ ‫ܦܓܪܗ ܠܕܒܚܐ ܕܡܗ ܠܪܣܣܐ‬ ‫ܒܪܝܟ ܫܘܡܠܝܗ‪.‬‬ ‫‪(3) de Azymis 9:4–5 = FM V, pp. 127–8.‬‬

‫ܒܗܢܐ ܥܕܥܕܐ ܚܕܝܘ ̈‬ ‫ܝܠܘܕܐ‬ ‫ܕܐܓܗܝܘ ܡܢ ܢܗܪܐ ̇ܚܢܩ ̈‬ ‫ܥܘ�‬ ‫ܒܗܢܐ ܥܕܥܕܐ ܚܕܝܘ ̈‬ ‫ܒܚܕܕܐ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܘܐܒܗܐ ܕܠܝܬܘܗܝ ܦܪܥܘܢ‪.‬‬ ‫ܒܢܝܐ‬ ‫‪(4) de Ecclesia 21:4–5 = FM VI, pp. 268 and 639 (stanza 5 only).‬‬

‫ܫܘܒܚܐ ܠܪܒܘܬܟ ܕܐܘܪܒܬ ܙܥܘܪܘܬܢ‬ ‫̈‬ ‫ܦܘܡܐ ܕܡܘܦܝܢ ܠܡܘܕܝܘ‬ ‫ܡܢܘ ܩܢܐ‬ ‫‪23‬ܡܕܢܚܐ ܒܫܝܦܘ̈ܪܐ ܡܥܪܒܐ ܒܩ�ܢܬܐ‬ ‫ܬܝܡܢܐ ܕܟܢ�ܐ‪24‬ܓܪܒܝܐ ܒܩܝܬ̈ܪܐ‬ ‫‪25‬ܟܕ ܪܥܡܝܢ ˺ܠܬܚܬ ܘܠܥܠ‬ ‫� ܡܫܟܚܝܢ ܡܘܦܝܢ ܠܡܕܡ ܕܩܒܠܢܢ‬ ‫‪Transposed in FM VI 639.‬‬ ‫‪Transposed in FM VI 639.‬‬ ‫‪ FM VI 268, 639; there is a metrical problem with both readings.‬ܕܠܬܚܬ ܐܦ ܕܥܠ ‪25‬‬ ‫‪23‬‬ ‫‪24‬‬

‫‪270‬‬

‫‪SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD‬‬

‫ܛܝܒܘܬܗ‪ 29.‬ܠܩܘܒܠ‪ 28‬ܣܦܩ‪ 27‬ܕܒܪܗ‪26‬ܒܪܝܟ ܗܘ‬ ‫‪(5) de Ecclesia 6:5 = H II, p. 381.‬‬

‫ܢܩܘܡ ܗܘ ܫܪܪܐ ܒܡܨܥܬܐ ܕܢܫܐܠ ܘܢܫܬܐܠ‬ ‫ܕܐܢ ܗܘ ܕܝܗܒ ܠܢ ܥܒܘܕܢ ܚܐܪܘܬܐ ܐܘ � ܝܗܒ ܠܢ‪.‬‬

‫‪Om. FM VI 268, 639.‬‬ ‫‪ Beck.‬ܘܒܪܗ ;‪= FM VI 268, 639‬‬ ‫‪̇ FM VI 268, 639.‬‬ ‫ܣܦܩ ‪28‬‬ ‫‪ FM VI 268, 639.‬ܠܘܩܒܠ ‪29‬‬ ‫‪26‬‬ ‫‪27‬‬

‫}‪{505‬‬

22

ST EPHREM IN THE EYES OF THE LATER SYRIAC LITURGICAL TRADITION * The cover of Kathleen McVey’s excellent collection of translations of St Ephrem’s hymns, in the Classics of Western Spirituality series, reproduces a modern icon of St Ephrem, portraying him in monastic habit. Professor McVey was extremely aggrevated when she learnt of the publisher’s intention, but was unable to persuade them to change their plans. The reason for her annoyance lay in her knowledge that this was a totally misleading and anachronistic way of portraying the saint, whose true milieu belonged to the indigenous Syrian tradition of the consecrated life, prior to the arrival in Syria and Mesopotamia of the Egyptian monastic tradition which later dominated the scene. 1 This anachronistic iconography of St Ephraim goes back a long way, though it so happens that the earliest surviving icon portraying the saint, from St Catherine’s Monastery Sinai, portrays the saint in a rather more appropriate way. 2 As we shall see, the later literary tradition concerning St Ephrem also distorts the true image of the saint in a {6} variety of different ways. In the present paper I shall confine myself to two aspects: first I shall briefly sketch out the growth of the biographical tradition as it gradually takes on purely legendary accretions; and secondly, since the liturgical tradition often acts as a good sounding board, I shall take a preliminary look at what this has to offer on St Ephrem, in the course of the various commemorations that are made of him during the year.

Originally published in Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 1:2 (1999). For this, see (e.g.) my The Luminous Eye: The Spiritual World Vision of St Ephrem (Kalamazoo, 1992). 2 Illustrated in K.A. Manafis (ed.), Sinai: Treasures of the Monastery of Saint Catherine (Athens, 1990), p. 145. *

1

271

272

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

I. THE GROWTH OF THE BIOGRAPHICAL TRADITION (SEE TABLE IN APPENDIX I)

Here the obvious starting point is the document entitled the ‘History of the holy Mar Ephrem the Teacher’, which comes down to us in several different recensions. 3 I shall refer to it simply as the ‘Life’. {7} Thanks to the work of Arthur Voobus, 4 Bernard Outtier, 5 Sidney Griffith 6 and Joseph Amar, 7 the true character of this Life of Ephrem has become clear. Voobus, for example, pointed out that the description of the river Daisan flowing round, and not through Edessa, indicated that the Life must belong to a time later than the flood of 525, after which the river’s course was diverted. 8 In the volume of Parole de l’Orient commemorating the 16th centenary of Ephraim’s death, Outtier gave a masterly sketch of the main extant sources upon which the compiler of the Life drew. Building upon this, Griffith and Amar have shown how the Life, which is heavily dependent on Greek sources, has given rise to a portrait of an ‘Ephraim There are two published forms of the Life: one, based on Vatican syr.117, was edited by P.Benedictus and J.E.Assemani, Sancti Patris Nostri Ephraem Syri Opera Omnia, III (Rome, 1743), xxii–lxiii [= V] (considerable extracts had appeared earlier in J.S. Assemani’s Bibliotheca Orientalis, I (Rome, 1719), 26–55); and the second, based on Paris syr.235, in T. Lamy, Sancti Ephraem Syri Hymni et Sermones, II (Malines, 1886), 3–89 [= P] (this was reprinted by P. Bedjan in Acta Martyrum et Sanctorum, III (Paris/Leipzig, 1892), 621–65). A comparative edition of P, V and British Library Or.9384 [= L], accompanied by English translation and study, is available in J. Amar’s PhD dissertation, The Syriac Vita Tradition of Ephrem the Syrian (Catholic University of America, Washington DC, 1988. Other manuscripts containing the Life are Damascus, Syr.Orth.Patriarchate 12/17 (no. 62), Sinai (New Finds), Sparagmata Syriaka 53, British Library Or.4404. (An edition of the Life, using all the manuscripts, is in preparation by J. Amar; for the contents, see Appendix II). There are also Armenian and Georgian versions, the former (made in 1101) was edited by L. Petrossian and B. Outtier (CSCO 473–74, Arm.14–15; 1981/5), and the latter by G. Garitte (CSCO 171–72, Iber.5–6; 1957); both of these are closer to P than to V. An Arabic translation remains unpublished; the oldest manuscripts belong to the 10th century (Sinai ar. 457, 520). 4 A.Vööbus, Literary Critical and Historical Studies in Ephrem the Syrian (Papers of the Estonian Theological Society in Exile 10; Stockholm, 1958), 22–32; and his History of Asceticism in the Syrian Orient, II (CSCO 197, Subs.17; 1960), 77–80. 5 B. Outtier, ‘S.Éphrem d’après ses biographies et ses œuvres’, Parole de l’Orient 4 (1973), 11–33. 6 S. Griffith, ‘Images of Ephrem: the Syrian Holy Man and his Church’, Traditio 45 (1989/90), 7–33. 7 J. Amar, ‘Byzantine ascetic monachism and Greek bias in the Vita tradition of Ephrem the Syrian’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 58 (1992), 123–56. 8 Vööbus, Literary Critical and Historical Studies, 29; cp Procopius, Buildings II.vii.2–9. (For problems concerning the alteration of the river’s course see A.N. Palmer, ‘King Abgar of Edessa, Eusebius and Constantine’, in H. Bakker (ed.), The Sacred Centre as a Focus of Political Interest (Groningen, 1992), 3–29. 3

22. ST EPHREM IN THE EYES OF THE LATER LITURGICAL TRADITION

273

byzantinus’, who is very different from the authentic ‘Ephraim syrus’, 9 author of the madrashe and other genuine writings. Basically, what the Life (along with other similar sources) has done is to ‘update’ the portrait of the saint to meet sixth-century expectations. This has affected the picture of Ephraim in three ways in particular: firstly, instead of the deacon and (probably) ihidaya, or single-minded celibate follower of Christ the {8} Ihidaya (Only-Begotten), 10 someone who worked primarily as a teacher (malpana) in the midst of the urban Christian community of, first Nisibis and then Edessa, the Life portrays him as an ascetic monk and hermit, living for the most part in his cell on the mountains outside Edessa (the sort of figure depicted on the cover of Kathleen McVey’s book). Secondly, this provincial from the eastern provinces of the Empire, who lacked a Greek-style education and had no direct contact with other great names of the fourth century (apart from with his local bishop, St Jacob of Nisibis), has become, not only a rhetor to rival the Greeks, but also an international traveller, visiting St Basil in Cappadocia, and St Bishoi in Egypt, thus linking him with the wider Christian world. And thirdly (and perhaps the most regrettable of all), the man who wrote specifically for women’s choirs, and whose portrayal of biblical women is quite exceptionally sympathetic, 11 has been transformed into an unsmiling misogynist. Since the details of the process by which this transformation happened have been well traced out by the scholars mentioned above, it is only necessary here to indicate some of the main features, concentrating primarily on those which will prove relevant when we come to the liturgical texts. One of our earliest biographical sources is Palladius, who devoted ch.40 of his Lausiac History (c.420) to Ephraim, and he happens to preserve what seems to be a genuine historical detail about Ephraim’s organisation of famine relief for the poor of Edessa right at the end of his life; at the same time, however, he describes Ephraim as someone who otherwise lived in a cell, and who ‘was held worthy of natural knowledge, and subsequently of the divine, and of perfect beatitude’ – in other words, someone who had successfully moved through the three Evagrian stages of the spiritual life. 12 Some twenty or so years later the Church historian Sozomen 13 describes Ephraim as someone who had ‘devoted his life to monastic {9} philosophy’; moreover, ‘contrary to all expectation’ his oratorical skills surpassed those of even ‘the most approved writers of Greece’, Griffith’s terms, ‘Ephrem syrus’ and ‘Ephrem byzantinus’ might be better replaced (for the present purpose) by ‘authentic’ and ‘anachronistic’ Ephrem, since the latter portrait, ‘Ephrem Byzantinus’, is by no means confined to the Greek world, even though many of the features are first attested there. 10 See S.H. Griffith, ‘“Singles” and “Sons of the Covenant”. Reflections on Syriac ascetic terminology’, in E. Carr and others (eds), Eulogema. Studies in Honor of R. Taft S.J. (Studia Anselmiana 110, 1993), 141–60. 11 See my The Luminous Eye, 168–72. 12 Palladius, Lausiac History, ch.40. 13 Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, III.16 (cp also VI.34). Most of the passage is translated in my St Ephrem the Syrian, Hymns on Paradise (New York, 1990), 15–19. 9

274

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

and won the admiration of St Basil, ‘the most eloquent man of his age’. Sozomen further informs his readers that Bardaisan’s son Harmonios, being ‘the first to subdue his native tongue to metres and musical laws’ introduced some of his father’s heretical teachings into his poems, and it was in order to counter the influence of these that Ephraim ‘applied himself to the understanding of the metres of Harmonios, and composed similar poems in accordance with the doctrines of the Church’. 14 Sozomen provides us with the first hint of Ephraim the misogynist, stating that ‘he refrained from the very sight of women’. Sozomen’s other information, such as the episode of his feigned madness to avoid consecration as a bishop, need not detain us. Theodoret, writing in the middle of the fifth century, is the first to hint at a role played by Ephraim, alongside his bishop Jacob, in a siege of Nisibis by Shapur II. 15 Syriac translations of these Greek works were probably made in the course of the late fifth and early sixth century; that of Palladius’ Lausiac History alone survives complete, and in this the Syriac translator has sandwiched Palladius’ brief notice between two texts of very different provenance, which were to prove very influential. 16 The first of these concerns the dream of ‘one of the holy Fathers’ about an angel who came down from heaven with a scroll written on both sides, and asked to whom it might be entrusted; after various suggestions have been made, it turns out that ‘no one can be entrusted with it apart from Ephraim’. The next morning, the Father who had had the dream ‘heard people saying “Ephraim teaches as if a fountain was flowing from his {10} mouth”’. The second addition describes ‘a dream or a vision’ which Ephraim saw in his youth, in which a vine sprung up from his tongue and bore abundant fruit: ‘the more the birds of the sky ate, the more the bunches of grapes multiplied and grew’. These two additions also turn out to be translations from Greek, for they are taken from the alphabetical series of the Apophthegmata of the Fathers, 17 and it is through the Syriac translation of Palladius (incorporated into the popular seventh-century collection of Egyptian monastic texts put together by ʿEnanishoʿ under the title ‘The Paradise of the Fathers’ 18) that these two apoFor Sozomen’s chauvinistic reasons for this portrayal, see my ‘Syriac and Greek hymnography, problems of origins’, Studia Patristica 16 = Texte und Untersuchungen 129, 1985), 77–81, repr. in Studies in Syriac Christianity (Aldershot, 1992), ch.VI. 15 Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History, IV.29. No hint of Ephrem’s role there is given in Theodoret’s chapter on Jacob of Nisibis in his Historia Philothea. 16 Ed. R. Draguet, Les formes syriaques de la matière de l’histoire lausiaque, II (CSCO 398–99, Scr.Syri 173–74; 1978), 289–89 (text), 190–92 (tr.); an English translation is given in St Ephrem the Syrian: Hymns on Paradise, 13–15. 17 Ephrem 2 and 1, in Patrologia Graeca 65, 168. 18 Book I, ch.56, in ed. E.A.W. Budge, The Book of Paradise (London, 1904), I, 277–9 (tr.), and II, 224–6 (text), and ed. P. Bedjan, Acta Martyrum et Sanctorum, VII (Paris/Leipzig, 1897), 175–8. The alphabetical series does not feature as such in Syriac translation. 14

22. ST EPHREM IN THE EYES OF THE LATER LITURGICAL TRADITION

275

phthegmata entered Syriac tradition, where they proved very popular and have influenced, among other things, the modern oriental iconographical tradition. 19 Perhaps roughly contemporary with the Syriac translation of Palladius is Jacob of Serugh’s memra on Ephraim. 20 Here and there Jacob uses phraseology that may reflect some of the Greek sources mentioned earlier/above: thus Ephraim is ‘a divine philosopher’ (§26), and ‘an amazing rhetor who vanquished the Greeks in his speech’ (§32), both perhaps reminiscences of Sozomen’s account of Ephraim; a possible reflection of the first of the apophthegmata in the Syriac Palladius is to be found when Jacob says that Ephraim ‘caused a sweet fountain of blessed water to flow in our land’ (§23). But otherwise Jacob offers us a very different (and probably {11} much more accurate) impression of the man, concentrating on two specific aspects, his instruction of women and his innovative use of them in choirs; and his role as ‘teacher of truth’ (§29), combatting heresies: The blessed Ephrem saw that the women were silent from praise, so in his wisdom he decided it was right that they should sing out. Just as Moses gave timbrels to the young girls, so too the discerning man composed hymns for virgins. As he stood among the sisters, it was his delight to stir these chaste women into songs of praise. (§§96–98).

Of uncertain date are a whole number of texts written in the first person which claim to be by Ephrem himself, none of which, however, is likely to be genuine. Best known amongst these is the Testament of Ephrem, which is certainly a local Edessene product, and perhaps belongs to the early sixth century. 21 Outtier has plausibly suggested 22 that the author took as his clue a passage in C.Nis. 19:15 where Ephrem mentions that the first three bishops of Nisibis did not leave testaments. Elements from this product of the imagination are used in the Life (this is particu-

The vine episode is especially favoured; it features, for example, in an icon of St Ephrem painted by Rabban Shemʿun Can, of the Monastery of St Mark, Jerusalem (illustrated in R. Derieva, The Meaning of Mystery: Icons of the Holy Land (Jerusalem, 1998), 61; I am most grateful to Rabban Shemʿun Can for a postcard of his icon and a copy of R. Derieva’s book). The text (on a scroll which Ephrem holds) is in the first person and would seem to be derived from the Testament (whose opening features on another scroll in the icon); the text, however, has many variations from Beck’s edition (see note 21), some of which concur with the Vatican recension of the Life. 20 Ed. J. Amar, A Metrical Homily on Holy Mar Ephrem by Mar Jacob of Serugh, Patrologia Orientalis 47:1 (1995); cited here by Amar’s numbering (of the couplets). 21 Ed. E. Beck, Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermones IV (CSCO 334–35, Scr.Syri 148– 49; 1973), 43–69 (text), 53–80 (tr.). 22 Outtier, ‘Saint Ephrem d’après ses biographies’, 24. 19

276

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

larly clear in the Vatican recension of the Life in chapter 15, on the dream of the vine). 23 It is elements of all of these texts (and other ones besides them, some now lost) that were brought together sometime in the latter half of the sixth century to form the Life of Ephrem. Perhaps {12} one should not be too surprised that in this Life, written some two hundred years after the time of its hero, a considerable distortion in the portrayal has taken place. Among the several elements that we meet with here for the first time the one of particular relevance for the second half of this paper concerns Ephrem’s origins. Against the evidence of Ephrem’s own hymns, where he states that he was brought up in the way of truth (H.c.Haer. 26:10; H. de Virg.37:10), the Life depicts his parents as pagans, and his father as a priest of an idol, Abnil. 24 Conceivably it was an adjacent passage in the first of these hymns that provided the author of the Life with his starting point in this mythopoeic development: Ephrem’s own words read ‘I was born in the path of truth, / even though my childhood was unaware; but once I grew aware I acquired it in the furnace’ – referring probably to baptism, which is not infrequently described in Syriac sources as a ‘furnace’.

II. THE LITURGICAL TRADITION

In the second part of my paper I turn to the liturgical tradition. Ideally one should go back to the rich manuscript tradition, but for reasons of practicality I have confined myself to the printed editions that are available. 25 The Church of the East commemorates St Ephraim, along with other Syriac teachers, on Friday of the fifth week after Epiphany. 26 The printed Hudra offers P and V specifically refer to the Testament, but, whereas P’s text is largely based on the Syriac translation of Palladius, with only minor influence from the Testament (notably the added adjective, ‘when he was a small boy’, and the statement that the vine ‘reached heaven’), V introduces further phraseology manifestly taken from the Testament, e.g. ‘(when he was a small boy) lying on his mother’s lap’. L, which places this vision at the end, does not mention the Testament, and derives its text word for word from the Syriac translation of Palladius. The Armenian has the episode in the same place as P V, while the Georgian has it in both positions (§§15, 45). 24 Life, §1; on the identity of the deity (Apollo, on the basis of the Georgian translation of the Life), see J. Tubach, ‘Der von Ephraem Syrus’ Vater verehrte Gott. Apoll in Nisibis’, in M. Tamcke, W. Schwaigert and E. Schlarb (eds), Syrisches Christentum Weltweit: Studien zur syrischen Kirchengeschichte. Festschrift W. Hage (Munster, 1995), 164–79. 25 I use the following: (East Syriac) T. Darmo (ed.), Hudra, I–III (Trichur, 1960–62) [= H]; P. Bedjan (ed.), Breviarium iuxta ritum Syrorum Orientalium id est Chaldaeorum, I–III (repr.Rome, 1938) [= BC]; (West Syriac) Clemens Joseph David (ed.), Breviarium iuxta ritum Ecclesiae Antiochenae Syrorum/Fenqitho da-slawotho ʿi(d)tonyotho d-lilay ʾimom ʾa(y)k tekso d-ʿi(d)to ʾAntyokoyto dSuryoye, I–VII (Mosul, 1886–1896) [= FM]; A.Konat (ed.), Fenqitho d-hudro sha(n)tonoyo, I–III (Pampakuda, 1962–63) [= FP]. 26 H I, 761–79 = BC I, 492–507. 23

22. ST EPHREM IN THE EYES OF THE LATER LITURGICAL TRADITION

277

little that is very specific: Ephraim (along with Narsai) is singled out as a teacher who ‘interpreted and illuminated the Scripture’, and who ‘quenched {13} and rendered ineffective the sects of the erroneous heretics’; 27 Ephraim is compared to ‘a skilled doctor who blended the insights of the Scriptures for the healing of the sick world’s ills’, 28 and (in phraseology which possibly reflects that of Jacob of Serugh, §23) Ephraim ‘became a fountain and caused life to flow for the whole world’. 29 It is evidently from the Hudra that ʿAbdishoʿ derived the title of ‘prophet’ for Ephraim. 30 The printed editions of the West Syrian Fenqitho provide considerably more material of interest. The Syrian Catholic edition printed in Mosul commemorates St Ephraim on three occasions: 28th January, 31 19th February (together with St Isaac the Teacher, of Edessa), 32 and on Saturday of the first week of Lent (together with St Theodore). 33 This last commemoration has by far the most text, and is the only one to feature in the Syrian Orthodox edition of the Fenqitho printed in Pampakuda (Kerala); the texts, however, only partly coincide. 34 One of the first things that strikes the reader of these liturgical texts of the Syrian Orthodox tradition is the considerable use that is made of Jacob of Serugh’s memra on Ephrem. This may be either direct quotation, or in a rephrased prose form. The direct {14} quotations are quite long, and comprise couplets 21–29 35 and 148–162 36 of Amar's recent edition of the memra. These include a couplet which H I, 766 = BC I, 496. H I, 767 = BC I, 497. 29 H I, 768 (cp FP II, 67). In the corresponding passage in BC I, 498 Ambrose’s name is substituted for that of Ephrem (in BC the commemoration is of the Syriac and Latin Fathers)! 30 H I, 775. The corresponding passage in BC I, 503 omits the word ‘prophet’. ʿAbdishoʿ, Catalogue, in J.S.Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis, III.1 (1725), 61. 31 FM III, 393–6. 32 FM III, 447–50. 33 FM IV, 176–99. For the various dates on which St Ephrem is commemorated in the Calendars, see F. Nau, Martyrologes et Menologes orientaux, Patrologia Orientalis 10 (1915), 140 (index). 34 FP II, 54–72. Overlap between the two editions is to be found on the following pages: FM IV 180 = FP II 56, 68 181 = 56, 65 188–9 = 57 190 = 59 191 = 62 195–6 = 70 27 28

35 36

FM IV, 181; FP II 56 (§§ 24–26), 65 (§ 28). FM IV, 196; FP II, 70 (§§148–52, 158–62).

278

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

specifically refers to Ephrem’s role in the instruction of women (§152). Further material manifestly derived from the memra is to be found above all in the Sedro that features in the commemorations for 28th Jan and the Saturday of the first week of Lent. 37 This may be illustrated from the following excerpt from the Sedro, where phraseology derived from the memra is italicised and the relevant couplet indicated: (~§§5, 9) O diligent merchant [§9a] who brought (back) his talent 10,000 times over [§5a], and it was not snatched away on the highways [§9a] of the evil world by the bandits of sin;

(~§24) O new wine, whose fragrance and colour is from Golgotha, by drinking from which men and women became inebriated and gave praise to God with a loud voice; (~§25) O fountain, from whom burst forth all kinds of sounds that were passed on in the world and with his songs he aroused the entire earth to ponder on (God);

(~§26) O divine philosopher who, by action, taught his disciples in accordance with the Saviour’s command;

(~§31) O astute man who uttered all his teaching in simplicity in order to assist the simple, and who was able to be both serpent and dove, as he was commanded; (~§32) O wondrous rhetor, who vanquished by his converse all the Greeks who were trained in rhetoric, in that, within a single word he was able to comprise many matters;

(~§46) He who gazed diligently in his mind on the great Moses, and after the model of the Hebrew women he taught the Aramaean women to give praise with their madrashe;

(~§157) He who measured out in orderly fashion and composed all his memre, ordering his teaching in metrical form, which he set out in the world;

(~§152) He who took women down to the contest of teaching, and with {15} young girls was resplendent in battle against the doctrines of vanity;

(-) He whose memre and madrashe are like the floods of the ocean, and of all the orators in the world none could feel out their depth or breadth;

(-) He who added glory to the Exalted One who has no need of praise, and now creation thunders with the sacred sounds of his teaching;

(~§155) He who became a crown for the people of the Aramaeans, (and) by him we have been brought close to spiritual beauty;

(-) He who raised up the horn of the Syrians everywhere, (and) from him henceforth we have learnt to sing to the Lord with sweet songs; …

Not surprisingly, the influence of the Life is reflected in several passages, such as the statement that Ephrem was converted from paganism: thus God ‘caused Ephrem to 37

FM IV, 178.

22. ST EPHREM IN THE EYES OF THE LATER LITURGICAL TRADITION

279

pass from paganism and brought him to true faith’; 38 elsewhere it is specified that it was Jacob of Nisibis who converted him. 39 As one might expect, the apophthegmata concerning the scroll and the vine (Life, §§14,15) also feature, the former indirectly, when Ephrem’s experience of divine inspiration is compared to Ezekiel’s consuming of a scroll (Ezek. 3:1–3). 40 A number of passages refer to Ephrem’s ascetic life on the mountains of Edessa (based on §13 of the Life); one of these 41 speaks of ‘the fragrance of (Ephrem’s) life of mourning’ (riha d-ʾabiluta), employing a phrase derived from the Life of Abraham of Qidun, 42 which was from an early date erroneously attributed to Ephrem. {16} A madrasha specifically on Ephrem states that Ephrem was sent to Edessa in order to counter the heresies of ‘the crazy Mani, the mad dog Marcion, and the errant Armianos (= Harmonios), son of Bardaisan’. 43 The mention of Harmonios derives ultimately from Sozomen, but almost certainly reached the author of the madrasha through the Life, the Paris recension of which uses the passage from Sozomen in §31. Although the ‘crazy Mani’ (ultimately of Greek origin) and the ‘mad dog Marcion’ do not feature in either the Paris or Vatican manuscripts of the Life, they are to be found in the longer form of §32 which is to be found in the Armenian translation of the Life, and are based ultimately on Ephrem’s madrashe against the Heresies (56:9). We know from an unpublished manuscript of the Life in Damascus, 44 and from a fragment from among the New Finds in St Catherine’s Monastery, 45 that chapters 31–2 of the Life were originally in a form rather fuller than what is available in the two printed recensions (Paris, Vatican). The reference to Bardaisan’s 150 psalms 46 is likely also to derive from the Life (§31, Paris recension), rather than directly from Ephrem, H.c.Haer.53:6 (which the Life indirectly quotes). Thus FM IV, 180, where Ephrem is being compared to Abraham who was told ‘Go forth from your land and come to the land I will show you, the land of promise’. Cp also III, 393; IV, 178, 193; FP II, 68. 39 FM III, 448. 40 FM IV, 188; FP II, 57. 41 FM III, 449. The ‘mountain of Edessa’ also features in IV, 193 (where 30 years is specified as the length of time spent there; this is due to contamination with the Life of Jacob of Nisibis). 42 Ch.21, ed. Lamy, Sancti Ephraem Syri, IV, 63, = ed. Bedjan, Acta Martyrum et Sanctorum, VI, 490. 43 FM IV, 190; FP II, 59. In FM ‘son of’ has been lost, so that ‘the wicked Bardaisan’ simply stands in apposition to Armonios/Harmonios. 44 See note 3, above. 45 See my Catalogue of Syriac Fragments (New Finds) in the Library of the Monastery of Saint Catherine, Mount Sinai (Athens, 1995), 52–54, and photographs of all the fragments on pp. 252–54. 46 FM IV, 190. 38

280

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

Also from the Life are a few references to the meeting with Basil, 47 and to the woman whose sins were forgiven. 48 {17} In the course of the Sedro quoted above which made considerable use of Jacob’s memra, there is a further passage which is of some interest, sandwiched between a reference to Ephrem’s teaching of women (based on Jacob) and a reference to his following in the footsteps of Basil (probably based on the Life): 49 …He who in proper and chaste fashion introduced virgins into the schools of his teaching; He who cunningly overcame the audacious sister of the accursed Bardaisan; He who kept vigil, standing in fasting and prayer, day and night; He who skilfully travelled in the footsteps of the great Basil; …

The intriguing – and of course wildly anachronistic – allusion to Bardaisan’s sister can fortunately be clarified by reference to chapter 54 of the Chronicle of Seert, 50 which is devoted to Ephrem. For the most part this chapter is based on the Life, but at the end we encounter the following narrative: It is told in certain histories that Bardaisan had composed a Gospel that differed from what Christ our Lord had said in the sacred Scripture. By means of it, he misled anyone who was feeble in faith and wandering in mind. Thus he corrupted the hearts of a multitude (of people) who looked into it. Now when Bardaisan died and God relieved the Church of him and his iniquity, Mar Ephrem craftily asked his sister to let him have the book so that he could have a look at it, after which he would return it to her. Now Satan, who loves corruption, incited her to ask him to have sexual intercourse with her, (Satan’s) purpose being to disgrace him. Accordingly she asked him, and he replied, ‘Give me the book to look at, then I will get on with what you asked me, and sleep and have intercourse with you’. She said, ‘Swear by Christ that you will do this, and that you will return the book to me once you have looked at it’. He swore to her by {18} Christ that he

FM IV, 194, 195, 196; FP II, 70. For the meeting of Basil and Ephrem, see O.Rousseau, ‘La rencontre de saint Éphrem et de saint Basile’, L’Orient Syrien 2 (1957), 261– 84; 3 (1958), 73–90. The episode will have taken its origin in Basil’s reference (Homily II.6 on the Hexaemeron) to a learned Syrian, whom later tradition (including Severus wrongly identified as Ephrem (criticized already by Moshe bar Kepha, Comm. on Hexaemeron, II.4; in fact it will have been Eusebius of Emesa: see L.van Rompay, ‘L’informateur syrien de Basile de Caesarée. A propos de Genèse 1,2’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 58 (1992), 245–51). A study of the precise relationship between Ps.Amphilochius, Life of Basil and the Syriac Life of Ephrem will have to await a critical edition of the former. 48 Life, §39; FM IV, 195. 49 FM IV, 194; III, 396. 50 Ed. A. Scher, Patrologia Orientalis 5 (1910), 298. An earlier chapter, 26 ( = Patrologia Orientalis 4 (1908), 293–5) is also devoted to Ephrem; this is often close to L, and like L, claims to be based on information from Ephrem’s disciple Shemʿon of Samosata. 47

22. ST EPHREM IN THE EYES OF THE LATER LITURGICAL TRADITION

281

would do that if she consented (to her part of the bargain). She agreed, and handed over the book to him. Once he had received it from her, he got hold of a large amount of glue and spread it over all the pages. He then closed (the book) very tightly until it was all stuck together. He returned it to her, took his cloak and set off with her. When he arrived in the midst of the market, crowded with people, he spread out his cloak on the ground and said, ‘Here you are, get on with what you asked for: lie down here so that I can keep my promise’. To which she replied, ‘Heavens above! Is there anyone in the world who would have intercourse with his wife in such a place, let alone with a strange woman?’. He then said to her, ‘Since you cannot do this, then I have carried out my part of the agreement, and am clear of my oath, seeing that it was you who have refused’. And so she went off – and the Most High God thwarted Satan of his hopes.

This anecdote has an interesting literary ancestry, for it is based on the third of the three apophthegmata concerning Ephrem in the Alphabetical Series of Apophthegmata. 51 There it is a prostitute who approaches Ephrem, seeking either to seduce him, or, failing that, to cause him vexation. Curiously, this seems to be the only place in the later legends about Ephrem where this third apophthegma is used, in contrast to the first two, whose use is widespread. The motif of gluing together the pages of a heretical book is absent from the apophthegma, but turns up in the Greek Homily on Ephrem falsely attributed to Gregory of Nyssa: 52 there it is again a woman from whom Ephrem borrows heretical works, but the theme of a sexual advance is absent; furthermore, it is not Bardaisan’s ‘gospel’ that Ephrem borrows, but two books by Apollinarius. Although there does not seem to be any evidence that Pseudo-Gregory’s Homily on Ephrem was ever translated into Syriac, the episode, linked to Apollinarius, is nonetheless known to {19} and used by the compiler of a Maronite synaxarion in his entry on Ephrem (28th January), recently published by Amar. 53 Evidently what we have in the Chronicle of Seert is the combination of two originally separate floating motifs, the sexual proposition made to Ephrem (derived from the third apophthegma under Ephrem’s name), and the gluing together of the pages of a heretical book – a motif which is used independently and in a different context by Pseudo-Gregory. The sexual proposition by Bardaisan’s sister in the Chronicle of Seert is but one, though the most risque, of a number of anecdotes about loose women and Ephrem (who always comes out well) which are to be found in the later biographical tradition. One may suppose that they took their origin in circles which sought to emphasize Ephrem’s unshakable chastity, and to nip in the bud any possible suggesPatrologia Graeca 65, 168. Patrologia Graeca 46, 840BC (CPG 3193); Outtier, ‘Saint Ephrem d’après ses biographies’, 27, dates it to ‘vers le VIIe siecle’ (in the table on p. 17 he gives 650). 53 J. Amar, ‘An unpublished Karsuni Arabic Life of Ephrem’, Le Muséon 106 (1993), 119–44. 51 52

282

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

tion on the part of hostile parties that Ephrem’s association with the teaching of women was in the slightest way improper. A further probable allusion to the episode with Bardaisan’s sister, found elsewhere in the Fenqitho, gives rise to a comparison with the biblical Joseph: 54 God gave success and advancement to the chaste and upright Joseph, the resplendent, thus putting to shame the insolence of the Evil One who sought to impose upon him a blemish; (God) again gave success and a crown to the holy Mar Ephrem, at the hands of the crazed woman, and thus the high rank of his purity grew.

Biblical parallels of a typological nature, such as this, are in fact characteristic of the liturgical tradition, and we find further comparisons with Abraham, 55 Moses, 56 Samuel, 57 Jeremiah 58 and Ezekiel. 59 {20} Two different passages in the Fenqitho introduce a word play on Ephrem’s name, comparing him with the Euphrates: 60 O Sea of wisdom and Profundity of symbols, Ephrem, the Euphrates who fructified with his teaching the living waters of souls (..Prat, d-‘apri b-yulpaneh mayya hayye d-napshata);

and: 61

He who became the mighty Euphrates with his teaching in the City of God, which is the holy Church.

It so happens that the same word play also features in the later Greek tradition, in Pseudo-Gregory of Nyssa’s Panegyric on Ephrem. 62 Finally, it may be noted that the Mosul edition of the Fenqitho contains one of the supposedly autobiographical texts attributed to Ephrem, a soghitha beginning ‘How often have I hungered…’. 63 FM IV, 180; FP II, 56. See above, note 38. A much more extended list of biblical models imitated by Ephrem is to be found in Ps.Gregory of Nyssa, Patrologia Graeca 46, 844–5 (Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, Paul). 56 FM IV, 180, where Ephrem being led to Jacob is compared to Moses as herdsman of Jethro. 57 FP II, 59. 58 FM IV, 188; FP II, 59. 59 See above, note 38. 60 FM IV, 186. 61 FP II, 71. 62 Patrologia Graeca 46, 824A. 63 FM IV, 191–2. The soghitha was also published by I.E. Rahmani, Studia Syriaca I (Charfet, 1904), 12–13; it is certainly not genuine. Another soghitha attributed to Ephrem, present in Mingana syr. 190, ff.126a–127b (beginning ‘Comfort of all Mourners’/ buyyaʾa d54 55

22. ST EPHREM IN THE EYES OF THE LATER LITURGICAL TRADITION

283

Sufficient has been said to indicate that the West Syriac liturgical tradition, at least in so far as it is represented in the printed editions of the Fenqitho, draws on a variety of different sources, prominent among which are Jacob of Serugh's memra on Ephrem and the Life. The result, not surprisingly, is that no consistent portrait is offered of the saint who is being commemorated.

CONCLUSION

Academics who deal with the past are frequently urged to make their subject relevant to the modern day, and maybe this is how we should view the transformations that have taken place in the Syriac tradition with the portrait of St Ephraim: perhaps all that the fifth- and sixth-century biographers wanted to do was to present the saint in a modern guise, to make him relevant to their own context. We, with our benefit of hindsight, can see that in the process of ‘updating’ St Ephraim, they have perverted the truth. But instead of simply condemning them, we should learn a lesson from what they have done, and beware of repeating their error, that is, of not allowing St Ephrem’s own writings speak for themselves. In other words, in order to gain a true picture of the saint, one needs to go back to the genuine texts themselves. This was still possible in the sixth century, when the Life of St Ephrem was compiled, for manuscripts of his complete madrashe cycles still circulated then; as the centuries advanced, however, two processes took place simultaneously: on the one hand, only a small selection of madrashe continued to be copied, and usually this was in abbreviated form, incorporated into the medieval hymnaries, or Fenqyotho; 64 and on the other hand, an ever increasing amount of anonymous material came to claim his authorship, thus conveying a very different impression about him. A phenomenon related to the first of these processes is the pillaging of Ephrem’s genuine madrashe for isolated stanzas and then supplementing them by new ones of an essentially moralizing character which provide the genuine stanzas with a completely different setting. 65 It has in fact only been within the last forty five odd years that it has once again become possible to go back to the real Ephrem, thanks above all to the late Dom Edmund Beck’s editions of the surviving madrashe cycles. A glance at his introductions will indicate that it is largely sixth-century manuscripts that provide the basis for his editions. That such early manuscripts should have survived at {22} all is very {21}

kull ʾabilin), was considered by Vööbus to be genuine: Literary Critical and Historical Studies, 16–18, and History of Asceticism, II, 73–74; this, however, cannot be the case since it includes the adjectival form malʾakaya, which is not otherwise attested before the sixth century. 64 See my ‘The transmission of Ephrem’s madrashe in the Syriac liturgical tradition’, in E.A. Livingstone (ed.), Studia Patristica 33 (1997), 490–505 = chapter 21, above. 65 An example is given in my ‘The transmission’, 495–6.

284

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

largely due to the tenth-century bibliophile abbot Moses who, like St Ephrem, originated in Nisibis. 66

APPENDIX I: EXTERNAL ATTESTATION CONCERNING EPHREM Summary chronological chart to mid seventh century This table is simply intended as an aide memoire; it should be noted that many of the dates ascribed to pseudonymous works are very uncertain.

373

Death of Ephrem.

c377

Epiphanius, Panarion 51,22,7 (Ephrem ‘the sage among the Syrians’ on the date of the Nativity).

392

Jerome, de viris illustribus, 115 (knows a work by Ephrem on the Holy Spirit already translated into Greek).

c400

Anonymous, Life of Abraham of Qidun, §§24, 28 (ed.Lamy, IV, 69, 77; mention of Ephrem).

c420

Palladius, Lausiac History, 40.

c440

Sozomen, HE III.16.

c450

Theodoret, HE II.30 (siege of Nisibis); IV.29 (mostly from Sozomen). Letter 145

482/4 c500

(PG 83, 1384D; mention of Ephrem as ‘Lyre of the Holy Spirit’).

Philoxenos (quotes from Ephrem’s Hymn Cycles in the Florilegium at the end of his Discourses against Habib).

Gennadius, de viris illustribus, 3 (Ephrem’s disciple Paulonas), 67 (memra on destruction of Nicomedia).

c500

Greek Apophthegmata (Ephrem and scroll; Ephrem and vine).

500+

Syriac translation of Palladius (incorporating Apophthegmata).

500+

Testament of Ephrem (utilising second apophthegma, by way of Syriac Palladius).

519

Earliest dated manuscript of Ephrem’s madrashe (BL Add. 14571). Severus, C.Grammaticum III.2 (ch.39, ed. Lebon, 244 end;

519

{23}

identifies Basil’s

On Moses of Nisibis, see J. Leroy, ‘Moise de Nisibe’, in [I] Symposium Syriacum (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 197; 1974), 457–70, and M. Blanchard, ‘Moses of Nisibis (fl.906–943) and the Library of Deir Suriani’, in L.S.B. MacCoull (ed.), Studies in the Christian East in Memory of Mirrit Boulos Ghali (Publications of the Society for Coptic Archaeology, North America, 1; 1995), 13–24. 66

22. ST EPHREM IN THE EYES OF THE LATER LITURGICAL TRADITION

pre 521 c550

?6th cent.

6th cent.+ c600

285

‘Syrian’ as Ephrem ‘because he certainly will have met him during his lifetime’). Jacob of Serugh, Memra on Ephrem.

Chronicle of Edessa (records death of Ephrem on 9 June 373).

Ps. Amphilochius, Life of Basil (meeting of Ephrem and Basil). Syriac Life of Ephrem (surviving in several recensions).

Barhadbeshabba, Ecclesiastical History (PO 23, 33; Ephrem’s nephew Abshlama,

bishop of Edessa, at Council of Nicaea). [Another(?) nephew of Ephrem,

Absimya, is said to have written a poem on the incursion of the Huns: Chron.846, c600 c650

in Chronica Minora II.208; Michael Syrus, Chronicle, VIII.1 (end)].

Barhadbeshabba, Cause of Schools (PO 4, 377, 381; Ephrem made ‘Exegete’ at a school in Edessa).

Ps.Gregory of Nyssa, Encomium on Ephrem. Nisibis by Jacob; founds school in Edessa).

APPENDIX II: THE SYRIAC LIFE OF EPHREM

(For abbreviations, see note 3. The sequence of chapters is that of P) Origins

Expelled by father

Meeting with Bp Jacob

P

V

L

2

2

=

1 3

1 3

=

Ultimate source (or inspiration)

(Ephrem, C.Nisibena)

E’s supposed child

4

4

(See P.Canart, Anal.Boll.84 (1966),309–33)

Siege of Nisibis

6

6

Theodoret, HE II.32; (Ephrem, C.Nisibena 1)

Council of Nicaea Death of Jacob

Constans and Julian E leaves Nisibis

Arrives at Edessa Encounter with woman

Works in bath house {24}

Joins monks on

5 7 8 9

10 11 12 13

5

cp. Theodoret, HE I.7

7 8 9

10 11 12 13

= =

= =

Sozomen, HE III.16

286

mountain

Vision of tomos Vision as a child

Comm. on Pentateuch

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD P

V

L

Ultimate source (or inspiration)

14

14

=

Apophthegmata > Palladius (Syr)

15

15

at

end

Apophthegmata > Palladius (Syr) and Testament

16

16

Stoned by heretics and

18

18

Writings against

19

19

(Ephrem, H.c Haereses)

Pupils

19

20

Sozomen, Testament

21

22

Flees from fame, meets angel pagans

heretics

Desires to see Basil (pillar of fire) Storm at sea

Arrival in Egypt

Meeting with Bishoi

Diet and appearance 8 years in Egypt; refutes Arians

17

20

22 23 24

17 =

21

23 24

Ps.Amphilochius = =

24

=

24

25

25

=

Ordained deacon by

25

26–

=

Basil

25

Wording of doxology

26

E returns

28

Basil and Gen.1:2

Episode at Samosata Return to Edessa,

deals with heretics

Writes hymns to rival

27 29 30 31

25 28 29

=

30

=

31

=

(29) 32 (33)

Life of Bishoi

=

Sails to Caesarea

Meeting with Basil

(Ephrem, Comm. Genesis)

=

Ps.Amphilochius Ps.Amphilochius Basil, On Holy Spirit

Basil, Hom.on Hexaemeron; cp Sozomen

(Ephrem, H.c Haereses) Sozomen

22. ST EPHREM IN THE EYES OF THE LATER LITURGICAL TRADITION P

V

Writes against ‘Seven’

32

33

Heals paralytic

33

34

=

34

35

=

Harmonius

Harmonius

of Bardaisan {25}

Basil’s attempt to

ordain E bishop E bishop

E’s friends and writings

34

35

35

36

L

Ultimate source (or inspiration)

(Ephrem, Prose Refutations)

=

Cp Sozomen; Ps.Amphilochius

Invasion of Huns

36

(Chron.Edessa, Sel.706 = AD 395)

Valens’ intended

37

Socrates, HE IV.18

Poem on Edessa’s

38

37

Caesarean woman’s

39

38

Death of Basil

40

39

Death of Ephrem

42

41

persecution

rescue

sins wiped out

Famine at Edessa

41

40

Ps.Amphilochius

= =

Palladius, Sozomen

287

23 GREEK WORDS IN EPHREM AND NARSAI: A COMPARATIVE SAMPLING *

To anyone familiar with Syriac literature of the fourth and fifth centuries, there is a marked difference in feel between writers of the fourth and those of the fifth century. This is largely the result of the ever increasing hellenization of Syriac culture that was taking place in late antiquity, culminating in the seventh century. One practical way of ‘taking the temperature’ (as it were) of Syriac literature at any given time is to look at the number of Greek words used. If one takes the Peshitta Old Testament (translated from Hebrew), there is normally a marked difference between those books which were probably translated earliest, and those which came rather later: thus the Peshitta Genesis has 12 Greek words, whereas Isaiah has 22, and 1 Maccabees 39. For the Syriac New Testament, translated from Greek, the numbers are not surprisingly higher: thus the Old Syriac Matthew has 40, the Peshitta 44, and the Harklean 70. 1 Of course, it is important to compare like with like, and this is especially so if one looks for figures in native Syriac authors: what is wanted is a similarity of genre, location and quantity, and a difference only in time. Poetry is especially suitable, since most of the Greek words used will be genuine loanwords, rather than temporary, or learned, borrowings (it is only in poetry of the eighth century and later that authors seek out recherché vocabulary, which may often be of Greek origin). A reasonably good ‘matching’ is provided by the two poets, Ephrem and Narsai. Ephrem was born in the early years of the fourth century, lived most of his life in Nisibis, but ended up (from 363–373) in Edessa; Narsai must have been born about a century later, was educated and spent much of his life in Edessa but moved in his later years to Nisibis, where he died c.500. Accordingly, as the basis for the present sampling I Originally published in Aram 11–12 (1999/2000), 439–49. For Greek words in the Syriac Bible, see J. Joosten, “Greek and Latin words in the Peshitta Pentateuch: first soundings”, in R. Lavenant (ed.), Symposium Syriacum VII, (OCA 256, Rome, 1998), pp. 37–47, and S. P. Brock, “Greek words in the Syriac Gospels (vet. and pe.)”, Le Muséon, 80 (1967), pp. 389–426. *

1

289

290

SINGER OF THE WORD OF GOD

use Ephrem’s madrashe, together with those memre which are generally thought to be by him, 2 and for Narsai the entire corpus of his surviving memre. 3 {440} A general idea of the situation can be gained by some crude overall figures: Ephrem in his poetry employs a total of 92 different words of Greek origin, 34 of which are used ten or more times, while Narsai uses a total of 160 different words, of which 55 are used 10 or more times. Ephrem in fact has 25 words which are not used in Narsai, and so the number of Greek words used by Narsai but not by Ephrem is 93. In fact many of these are not new arrivals in Syriac, but are already found in the Syriac Bible, but happen not to be used by Ephrem in his poetry (several of them, however, feature in his prose works). In some cases the difference in use between Ephrem and Narsai can simply be attributed to individual choice and taste: thus Ephrem, who likes imagery of fragrance and smell, employs herômâ (=ἄρωμα) which is absent from Narsai, who has no such interest. The fact that Ephrem lived all his life within the Roman Empire, whereas Narsai spent his early and last years outside it, may explain why bîmâ (= βῆμα), which is very common in Ephrem (and occurs in the Old Syriac Gospels), is never used by Narsai. Nevertheless it is not difficult to point to some diachronic developments. Ephrem is the earliest witness to the Greek particle γοῦν in the compound form badgûn, but he never uses ’arâ (=ἄρα) which, however, features 57 times in Narsai: this is entirely in accordance with the wider evidence, for no certain occurrence of ’arâ is to be found in any Syriac source before the fifth century (normally it asks a question, and only more rarely does it have an inferential sense). 4 Although badgûn is quite frequent in most Syriac writers from Ephrem onwards, it so happens that it is absent from Narsai’s genuine works, for it features only in Homily 17 (M I, 271, 277, 288): this homily happens to display a whole number of linguistic features Beck’s editions in CSCO conveniently provide indexes of Greek words (though these need slight modification at times). Details of editions of Ephrem can be found in my “A brief guide to the main editions and translations of the works of St Ephrem”, The Harp (Kottayam), 3 (1990), pp. 7–29, and updated in chapter 24, below. 3 Thus, besides A. Mingana, Narsai doctoris syri homiliae et carmina, I-II, (Mosul, 1905) [= M], which only gives 47 out of the 81 extant memre, I also use the complete facsimile edition (based on a very late manuscript) published by the Patriarchal Press, Homilies of Mar Narsai, III, (San Francisco, 1970) [= P]. Both are cited by volume and page number; where homilies have been published in Patrologia Orientalis (= PO) 34 (on Creation) and 40 (on Nativity etc.), I have cited from these instead, by PO volume, homily number and line. Three memre that are not in Mingana’s edition are published by E. P. Siman, Narsai. Cinq homélies sur les paraboles évangéliques, (Paris, 1984): these correspond to P II as follows: Siman 2 = P II, 318–36; Siman 5 = P II 872–886, while Siman 4 (Workers in the Vineyard) is in neither M nor P (the other two memre in Siman correspond to Mingana’s edition as follows: Siman 1 = M I, 243–256; Siman 3 = M II, 84–99). Some further memre only in P are to be published by J. Frishman. 4 For Greek particles in Syriac, see my “Greek words in Syriac: some general features”, Studia Classica Israelica, 15 (1996), [= From Ephrem to Romanos: Interactions between Syriac and Greek in Late Antiquity, (Aldershot, 1999), ch.XV], pp. 251–62, esp. pp. 258–260. 2

23. GREEK WORDS IN EPHREM AND NARSAI: A COMPARATIVE SAMPLING 291 which are absent from all the rest of the corpus, 5 and so should be seen as a work belonging probably to a generation or so later than Narsai.

WORD FORMATION

Another area where some general diachronic developments can be observed concerns inner Syriac developments, where Syriac suffixes are added to an original Greek loanword.

(1) -ûtâ A couple of witnesses to this process can already be found in Ephrem, where the abstract ending -uta has been added: thus he has ’āsôṭûtâ < ‘āsôṭâ < ἄσωτος, 6 and hedyôṭûtâ < hedyôṭâ < ἰδιώτης. 7 The former already occurs in the Liber Legum Regionum (21) and the Peshitta New Testament (Luke 21:34, but not Old Syriac; Eph. 5:18, Tit. 1:6, and I Peter 4:4)., while the latter first appears in the Syriac translations of the Clementine Recognitions (pre AD 411, the date of the manuscript) and Eusebius (as so often seems to have been the case, new developments of this sort often first feature in translations and then get taken over by native Syriac writers). 8 To these formations of abstract nouns Narsai adds a further seven examples: - ’atlîṭûtâ < ‘atlîṭâ < ἀθλητής; (this is already to be found in Aphrahat, Dem. VI.1). 9 - hegmônûtâ < hegmônâ < ἡγεμών; (this already occurs in the Old Syriac Gospels, Luke 3:1, and the Syriac translation of Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. I.5.2). 10 - qapîlûtâ < qapîlâ < κάπηλος; (M I, 360; Narsai is the earliest witness). - pô’îṭûtâ < pô’îṭâ < ποιητής; (S IV, 148; Narsai is the earliest witness). - rhîṭrûtâ < rhîṭrâ < ῥήτωρ; (found in early translations of Eusebius and Basil). 11 - sûn’îgrûtâ < sûn’îgrâ < συνήγορος; (also in Isaac of Antioch and Jacob of Serugh). 12 - tārônûṭâ