Resolving Genealogical Ambiguity: Eusebius and (ps-)Ephrem on Luke 1.36
In: Aramaic StudiesSearch for other papers by Matthew R. Crawford in
Current site
Google Scholar
The earliest formal New Testament commentary in Syriac is the so-called Commentary on the Diatessaron attributed to Ephrem. This commentary is thoroughly at home in the world of Syriac Christianity, as seen not least in the fact that it focuses on Tatian’s idiosyncratic gospel version. Nevertheless, portions of the commentary also exhibit awareness of exegetical traditions shared with contemporary Greek authors. This paper focuses on one of the more striking of these parallels, namely, (ps-)Ephrem’s treatment of Mary’s Davidic lineage and relation to Elizabeth her ‘kinswoman’. Eusebius of Caesarea had taken up this issue in his Gospel Problems and Solutions, and the author of the Syriac commentary argues for the same three points evident in Eusebius’ treatment. Hence, the Syriac commentator has likely been directly or indirectly influenced by Eusebius’ formulation of this tradition, although specifying the manner of this transmission of ideas is impossible.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
6
Cf. Matthew R. Crawford, ‘The Fourfold Gospel in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian’, Hugoye 18 (2015), pp. 9–51.
-
12
Asc. Isa. 11.2; Ignatius, Eph. 18.2; Justin, Dial. 43.1; 45.4; 68.6; 100.3; Irenaeus, Haer. 3.9.2; 3.16.3; 3.21.5; dem. 36; Tertullian, Marc. 3.20; 4.1; Ad. Iud. 9.26–27; De carne Christi 22; Prot. Jas 10.
-
13
Origen, In Rom. 1.7.6. Cf. Zamagni, Questions Évangéliques, pp. 96–97 n. 2, 98 n. 1. Lingering in the background of these criticisms may be Celsus, who seemed to think it absurd that a descendant of kings should marry a carpenter (Origen, Cels. 2.32). Origen elsewhere explains that Joseph was called Jesus’ ‘father’ as a sign of honor since he was responsible for raising the child, and because Jesus’ genealogy extended from David to Joseph (In Lucam 17.1).
-
20
Aphrahat, Dem. 23.20. The citation of 3 Corinthians in this passage is sometimes said to be Rom. 1.3–4, but is in fact from the apocryphal text, which Aphrahat took to be genuinely Pauline, as argued by J. Edward Walters, ‘Evidence for Citations of 3 Corinthians and Their Influence in the Demonstrations of Aphrahat’, VC 67 (2013), pp. 248–262 (252–254).
-
27
George Anton Kiraz, Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels, Volume 3: Luke (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996) p. 26. Only the Sinai Old Syriac survives for this verse.
-
31
Guignard, La lettre de Julius Africanus à Aristide, pp. 219–227. On Africanus, see also William Adler, ‘Sextus Julius Africanus and the Roman Near East in the Third Century’, JTS 55 (2004) pp. 520–550; reprinted in Johnson, Languages and Cultures of Eastern Christianity: Greek, pp. 123–153.
-
37
Cf. Zamagni, Questions Évangéliques, pp. 16–18, who follows the earlier work of Baumstark and Beyer. For the fragments that do survive, see the text and translation in Pearse, Gospel Problems and Solutions, pp. 303–349.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 268 | 39 | 17 |
| Full Text Views | 205 | 1 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 43 | 4 | 1 |
Resolving Genealogical Ambiguity: Eusebius and (ps-)Ephrem on Luke 1.36
In: Aramaic StudiesSearch for other papers by Matthew R. Crawford in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
The earliest formal New Testament commentary in Syriac is the so-called Commentary on the Diatessaron attributed to Ephrem. This commentary is thoroughly at home in the world of Syriac Christianity, as seen not least in the fact that it focuses on Tatian’s idiosyncratic gospel version. Nevertheless, portions of the commentary also exhibit awareness of exegetical traditions shared with contemporary Greek authors. This paper focuses on one of the more striking of these parallels, namely, (ps-)Ephrem’s treatment of Mary’s Davidic lineage and relation to Elizabeth her ‘kinswoman’. Eusebius of Caesarea had taken up this issue in his Gospel Problems and Solutions, and the author of the Syriac commentary argues for the same three points evident in Eusebius’ treatment. Hence, the Syriac commentator has likely been directly or indirectly influenced by Eusebius’ formulation of this tradition, although specifying the manner of this transmission of ideas is impossible.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 268 | 39 | 17 |
| Full Text Views | 205 | 1 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 43 | 4 | 1 |