THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY of AMERICA St

Home , Ephrem the Syrian, Jacob of Nisibis, Mirian III of Iberia, Narsai, Philoxenus of Mabbug, Sebastian Brock

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA

St. Ephrem the Syrian’s Spiritual Guidance:

A Study of the Verse Homilies on Reproof

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to the Faculty of the

Department of Semitic and Egyptian Languages and Literatures

School of Arts and Sciences

Of the Catholic University of America

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Colby A. Scott

Washington, D.C.

2020

St. Ephrem the Syrian’s Spiritual Guidance:

A Study of the Verse Homilies on Reproof

Colby A. Scott, Ph.D.

Director: Sidney H. Griffith, Ph.D.

Statement of the Problem and Background

Ephrem the Syrian (c. 306-373) is one of the most well-known of Syriac writers. He is celebrated in the Eastern Churches not only for his theology and biblical commentary, but also for his achieved popularity as a proto-monastic figure. After Ephrem’s lifetime, his reputation as an esteemed theological teacher (mallpānā) continued to spread among the Syriac-speaking churches. As his reputation spread westward, he became known primarily as an anchorite living in the desert in the environs of Edessa, who would on occasion enter the city to give spiritual guidance. A large Greek corpus of texts began to be transmitted under Ephrem’s name. Two different images of Ephrem emerged, classed under the titles of Ephrem Syrus and Ephrem

Byzantinus. The image of Ephrem Syrus depicts Ephrem as primarily a teacher in the Syriac tradition and a deacon in the service of the bishops in Nisibis and Edessa during his lifetime. The image of Ephrem Byzantinus shows him as a monastic writer. Ephrem’s works preserved in

Greek are primarily ascetic in character with only a little relationship to works preserved in

Syriac, which serve as evidence of his role as a teacher. Little attention has been paid to

Ephrem’s role as spiritual guide in the Syriac tradition. It is striking that few of his ascetical texts have been studied other than those transmitted in Greek under his name. His Syriac ascetical

works, namely the Verse Homilies on Reproof (mēmrē d-makksānūtā), have gone largely unstudied.

In the eighteenth century Joseph Assemani published in six volumes both the Syriac and

Greek texts attributed to Ephrem along with Latin translations. This monumental publication became the foundation for nearly all Ephrem scholarship until the middle of the twentieth century when Dom Edmund Beck began publishing editions and German translations of the

Syriac corpus. Kees den Biesen’s Annotated Bibliography of Ephrem the Syrian indicates that only a handful of these Greek works published by Assemani correspond to an extant Syriac text and only two of these texts are considered to be authentic works of Ephrem the Syrian, namely the Sermo Asceticus and De Morbo Linguae et Pravis Affectibus. These two Greek texts discuss topics similar to the first two Verse Homilies on Reproof published by Beck in Des Heiligen

Ephraem Des Syrers Sermones I. In addition to these two Verse Homilies on Reproof, Beck published two other memre bearing the same title, which are considered to be genuine works of

Ephrem (Sermones I mēmrē 3 and Sermones II mēmrē 2).

The relationship between content and form in Ephrem’s memre remains understudied.

More work needs to be done to address the connection between the image of Ephrem Graecus and the historical Ephrem. In particular, a thorough study is required of the two authentic Syriac texts which became a part of the Greek corpus. Thus, a close reading with English translation of the four Verse Homilies on Reproof judged authentic by Beck remains a scholarly desideratum.

Purpose

The purpose of this dissertation is to examine the image of Ephrem as an ascetical spiritual guide within the context of the four reliably authentic Verse Homilies on Reproof.

Special emphasis will be given to the formal structure of the mēmrā since this ubiquitous Syriac

genre has so far only elicited cursory scholarly attention. This dissertation will provide the first annotated English translation and close study of the four mēmrē.

Methodology

This dissertation will situate the central themes within an analysis of the overall structure of each text. Special attention will be given to how Ephrem utilizes poetic techniques to persuade and guide his audience. The translation and analysis will be informed by previous non-

English translations and relevant passages in Ephrem’s Syriac corpus. This structural analysis will, in turn, become the foundation for a study of Ephrem the Syrian’s spiritual guidance. This will be situated into a discussion of the reception of that guidance in the Ephrem Graecus corpus and later Syriac tradition.

Contribution and Originality

This dissertation will provide the first summary and analysis of the content and form of these homilies. It will provide an analysis of Ephrem as spiritual guide using a set of evidence, which has yet to be considered by modern scholars.

This dissertation by Colby A. Scott fulfills the dissertation requirement for the doctoral degree in Near Eastern Christian Languages and Literatures approved by Sidney H. Griffith, Ph.D., as Director and by Monica J. Blanchard, Ph.D., and Aaron M. Butts, Ph.D., as Readers.

______Sidney H. Griffith, Ph.D., Director

______Monica J. Blanchard, Ph.D., Reader

______Aaron M. Butts, Ph.D., Reader

Dedication

For Father Sidney, who “Acts in God’s eye what in God’s eye he is— Christ. For Christ plays in ten thousand places, Lovely in limbs, lovely in eyes not his to the Father through the features of men’s faces.” --Gerard Manley Hopkins, As Kingfishers Catch Fire

iii

Contents

Abbreviations...... v

Acknowledgements...... vii

Part I: Historical and Literary Background

Chapter 1 Ephrem of Nisibis: Profile of a Borderland Pastor-Poet...... 2

Chapter 2 The Harp of the Spirit: The Teaching Songs of St. Ephrem…….……….36

Chapter 3 Swaying an Audience with the Rhythms of Reproof……………………58

Part II: A Commentary on the Verse Homilies of Reproof Attributed to St. Ephrem

Chapter 4 Manuscripts and Authenticity...... 84

Chapter 5 Commentary on Reproof 1...... 95

Chapter 6 Commentary on Reproof 2 and 3...... 113

Chapter 7 Coda Closure: A Commentary on Reproof α...... 131

Appendices:

Appendix A:

The First Verse Homily of Reproof ...... 139

The Second Verse Homily of Reproof ...... 167

The Third Verse Homily of Reproof ...... 264

Another Homily of Reproof...... 290

Appendix B:

A Parallel Edition of Another Homily of Reproof Attributed to St. Ephrem the Syrian...... 329

Abbreviations I. Works attributed to Ephrem:

Azym Hymnen de Azymis CH Hymnen de Contra Haereses CJ Hymnen Contra Julianum Cruc Hymnen de Crucifixione Eccl Hymnen de Ecclesia HdF Hymnen de Fide Nat Hymnen de Nativitate Nico Mēmrē sur Nicomedie Nis Carmina Nisibena Par Hymnen de Paradiso Pros Ref Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan Pub Letter to Publius Qid Hymnen auf Abraham Kidunaya Res Hymnen de Resurrectione SdF Sermones de Fide SJon Sermon on the Ninevites and Jonah (Sermones II, text 1) Virg Hymnen de Virginitate

II. Biblical Books:

Gn Genesis Ex Exodus Nm Numbers Jo Joshua Jgs Judges 1 Sm 1 Samuel 2 Sm 2 Samuel 1 Kgs 1 Kings 2 Kgs 2 Kings Ez Ezra Est Esther Ps Psalms Is Isaiah Dn Daniel Mt Matthew Mk Mark Lk Luke Jn John 1 Cor 1 Corinthians Rom Romans Eph Ephesians

III. Other Primary Sources:

Amm. Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae Aph Demonstrations of Aphrahat (cited from Parisot vol:pg:ln) Addai Doctrine of Addai

IV. Lexica and Grammars

CAL The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon JPS J. Payne Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary Kiraz George Anton Kiraz, Syriac Orthography Sok Michael Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon Nöldeke Theodor Nöldeke, Compendious Syriac Grammar

V. Other CSCO Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium LM Le Muséon PO Patrologia Orientalis REF Dodgeon and Lieu, The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I want to acknowledge and thank my family for their constant support and encouragement throughout this endeavor. And this certainly includes my supportive in-laws and the Hope Church family (especially Christian, the Bellums, and the Baumans). Life became complicated these last few years and my supportive family helped me through. Furthermore, my wife (Kim) needs special thanks—for no spouse should have to hear the name “Ephrem” spoken with such zeal and frequency.

Next, I want to acknowledge my undergraduate professors John Busanich, Brian Lanter,

Nancy McLoughlin, and especially Thomas Sizgorich. These kindled my bibliophilia. And I could not have asked for better teachers.

I want to thank Monica Blanchard—who is always busy, but always eager to help—for her gentle speech and her vast bibliographic knowledge. When I began studying at CUA, the first thing we read together was the Syriac text of Aphrahat’s Demonstration on Humility. And as I continued my studies at CUA, I discovered that her life perfectly demonstrated the piety commended in that text. I can think of no higher honor than to say that she is the embodiment of

Eastern Christian spirituality.

Now, I cannot even begin to express the deep sense of gratitude I have toward Sidney

Griffith for his friendship and his teaching (and for his memorable anecdotes). Sidney, I consider studying with you to have been one of this life’s profoundest joys! From its inception, this study has been dedicated to you.

I also feel a strange and uncanny appreciation for the conference table around which I honed my knowledge of Syriac in the Christian Near East Reading Room at CUA. I am thankful to have sat around the same table as many illustrious Syriac scholars before me. But I am

vii

especially thankful for the engaging conversations I had around that table with my fellow graduate students: Nathan Gibson, Andrew Litke, Armando El-Khoury, Ryann Craig, Vince

Bantu, and Morgan Reed.

And while I never took a course from professors Aaron Butts and Janet Timbie, I value what I learned from them in CUA hallways and conference rooms.

The librarians of Erna Ferguson Public Library in Albuquerque, New Mexico are thanked for helping me secure countless interlibrary loans as I conducted my research without a local research library.

And Robert Kitchen is thanked for kind words and insightful engagement with an early stage of this project; and Jeffery Wickes for clarifying in personal correspondence his views on the performative context of Ephrem’s songs.

And finally, I want to thank my dear colleague Joshua Falconer, who has influenced this project immensely through countless conversations on Syriac (and English) poetics.

viii

Part I

Historical and Literary

Background

Chapter 1 Ephrem of Nisibis: Profile of a Borderland Pastor-Poet

Nisibis sits by waters— waters unseen and seen. Living springs inside her; noble stream outside her. Outside stream betrayed her; inside source protected her.1 --Ephrem the Syrian

This chapter situates the life of Ephrem the Syrian within the historical context of his beloved homeland, Nisibis. This walled city lay on the Roman side of the Romano-Persian border. For most of Ephrem’s career he was a borderland pastor-poet in Nisibis, but, after the city was ceded to Persian control in 363, Ephrem became a displaced Nisibene refugee serving the church in Roman Edessa for the last decade of his life. This chapter focuses on Ephrem’s

Nisibene period in order to provide a background for the present study of four texts each bearing the title Verse Homily of Reproof of St. Ephrem (mēmrā d-makksānūtā dīleh d-mār aprēm), which likely hail from the author’s late Nisibene period. Three of these homilies are of certain authenticity and the other is of uncertain authenticity.2 This study refers to the certainly authentic homilies as First, Second, and Third of Reproof (Reproof 1, 2, and 3). And the questionably-authentic homily is called Another of Reproof (Reproof α).

1 Nis 13:18. The translation reflects the rhythm and soundscape of the Syriac original. Unless otherwise noted, all translations are those of the present author. 2 On authenticity, see Chapter 4.

2 3

Ephrem on the Frontier

Early in the third century, Ardašir I founded the neo-Persian Sassanid dynasty when he successfully revolted against the Arsacids.3 Ardašir consolidated his power and began a series of westward campaigns against the Roman Empire to reclaim the lands which once belonged to the

Achaemenid Empire. Thus, began a long history of struggle between these empires which continued—sometimes in open war, other times with precarious peace—until Arab raiding parties conquered vast swaths of their lands; crippling the Roman Empire and eliminating the

Persian Empire.4 From the third century unto the seventh century, the Romano-Persian border was in a state of constant flux due to a series of back and forth conflicts punctuated with temporary truces. And throughout the third century conflict, the fortress city of Nisibis remained a strategic and economic center: held by Rome, sought by Persia.5

In the late 280s, the borderlands temporarily experienced a period of relative peace as the

Roman emperor Diocletian effected his far-reaching military reforms and the Sassanians dealt with an internal power struggle.6 In 296 Narseh, the newly raised Sassanian King, renewed the conflict. His campaign was successful at first, but in 299 (or 298?) the recently restructured

3 Ardašir (r. 224-240) is known as (Arta)xerxes in western sources. This narrative of the third century Romano- Persian conflict is necessarily brief. For a nuanced narrative that properly addresses the historiographical problems, see Beate Dignas and Engelbert Winter, Rome and Persia in Late Antiquity: Neighbours and Rivals (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2007), 18-32, 71-88, 122-130. For a critical analysis of the sources, see Fergus Millar, The Roman Near East: 21BC – AD 337 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1993), 141-207. For a collection of relevant primary sources in English translation, see Michael H. Dodgeon and Samuel N.C. Lieu, The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars (AD 226-363): A Documentary History (London, New York: Routledge, 1994), 1-163. Henceforward, REF. 4 Peter Brown craftily telescopes the narrative, “The Byzantines were routed at the battle of Yarmuk in 636: Antioch fell in 637; Alexandria in 642; Carthage in 698… in 637, the Sassanian state crumbled.” Peter Brown, The World of Late Antiquity: AD 150-750 (New York, London: W.W. Norton & Co.), 194. On the so-called Islamic conquests, see Robert G. Hoyland, In God’s Path: The Arab Conquests and the Creation of an Islamic Empire (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2015). 5 It is possible that several Roman cities (including Nisibis) were briefly under Persian control from the mid-230s until 242/3. It is also possible, though not probable, that several Roman cities (including Nisibis) very briefly came under Persian control in 260. For a discussion of the problematic sources, see Millar, Roman Near East, 150, 153, 162-169. See also the translations of Scriptores Historiae Augustai (a late fourth century source of questionable reliability) in REF, 2.2.1, 4.3.2. 6 Dignas and Winter, Rome and Persia, 26-28.

Roman military dealt such a blow to the Persian forces that Narseh agreed to a peace treaty which heavily favored Rome’s interests in the region.7 The treaty transferred to Rome suzerainty over several Armenian and Iberian provinces and established Roman Nisibis as the sole place of trade between the empires.8 This last stipulation assured that Nisibis would become the location where the fourth century Persian empire would meet Rome for both trade and war.9

About a decade after the treaty was signed—in the early years of the fourth century—in

Roman Nisibis, Ephrem the Syrian was born to Christian parents.10 In his childhood, the truth of the church was with him at a time when the church was still intermittently suffering under the tetrarchic “great persecution.”11 And before Ephrem was full grown, Constantine famously conquered Maxentius under the sign (of the cross?).12 So by the time Ephrem was baptized as a young man,13 Constantine had already signed the Edict of Milan thereby granting Christians freedom of worship.14 The days of Roman persecution had come to an end. Ephrem’s elder contemporaries surely had personal memories of past persecution and Persian hostility. Yet

7 A number of sources indicate that Narseh’s family was captured. See REF, 5.3.5, 5.4.2. 8 See REF, 5.4.2-3. See also R.C. Blockley, “The Romano-Persian Peace Treaties of A.D. 299 and 363,” Florilegium 6 (1984), 28-49. For a slightly different interpretation of the terms of the treaty, see Dignas and Winter, Rome and Persia, 122-130. The present author prefers the interpretation of the terms of the treaty regarding Armenia as explicated by Blockley. 9 Indeed, Nisibis’ prime location alone would have secured her as a site of trade and war, see Paul S. Russell, “Nisibis as the Background to the Life of Ephrem the Syrian,” Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 8:2 (2005), 186- 189, 216-217, https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/article/hv8n2russell. 10 306 is the date commonly assigned by conjecture to Ephrem’s birth. For a biographical sketch of Ephrem, see André de Halleux, “Saint Éphrem le Syrien,” Revue théologique de Louvain 14:3 (1983), 330-33. See also Edward G. Mathews Jr. and Joseph P. Amar, St. Ephrem the Syrian: Selected Prose Works (Washington D.C.: CUA Press, 1994), 25-37. 11 Virg 37:10: “Your truth with my youth; / Your surety with my old age.” And CH 26:10: “I was born on truth’s path / even though my childishness was unaware.” The “great persecution” begun in 303 and was officially brought to an end in 311, but was unofficially continued until 313. See W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 452-484. 12 See Warren Treadgold, A Concise History of Byzantium (New York: Palgrave, 2001), 18-19. 13 Ephrem poetically narrates his baptism in CH 3:13. The sequence of lines suggests that Ephrem was old enough to understand and profess a Trinitarian formula at the time of his baptism. Thus, the phrase “young man” intentionally covers a range of ages. 14 Frend, Rise of Christianity, 483.

Ephrem came to his maturity during a brief window where the Church of Nisibis was allowed to flourish without disruption from foreign forces or domestic rulers.

According to Elias of Nisibis (c. 974-1046), Jacob became the first Nisibene bishop in

308 and shortly thereafter oversaw the construction of the city’s church (313-320).15 In the early

2000s, archaeologists began to uncover and document some of this long-buried church structure.

While a full archeological report has yet to emerge, Keser-Kayaalp and Erdoǧan have given a preliminary report on “the cathedral” built during the episcopacy of Jacob as well as the surrounding structures.16 Jacob’s cathedral, where choirs would later sing Ephrem’s songs, was built just a little southwest of the city center.

If the dates given by Elias of Nisibis are correct, this cathedral was built at the same time as the Lateran Basilica in Rome (312-324).17 And just like the Lateran Basilica, this cathedral appears to have been a five-aisle structure of monumental proportions (~ 50m by 90m).18 The

Lateran Basilica, funded from Constantine’s res privata, was a public “showpiece of imperial power.”19 Yet unlike the Lateran Basilica, our sources do not associate the Nisibene Church with Constantine’s coffers. Even though the surviving sources do not indicate the financial patron for this costly undertaking, it is worth noting that during the Constantinian dynasty there was wide-spread imperial patronage for monumental church projects, “implemented quite

15 Jean-Maurice Fiey, Nisibe: metropole syriaque orientale et ses suffragants des origines à nos jours (Louvain: CSCO, 1977), 23. See also Russell, “Nisibis as the Background,” 220-3. 16 Elif Keser-Kayaalp and Nihat Erdoǧan, “The Cathedral Complex at Nisibis” Anatolian Studies 63 (2013): 137- 154. 17 Noel Lenski, Constantine and the Cities: Imperial Authority and Civic Politics (Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania Press, 2016), 182-183. 18 Keser-Kayaalp and Erdoǧan, 142. The archaeological site is located near the southern edge of the modern city Nusaybin, Turkey. It is bounded to the north by a road and to the west by a Mosque. Thus, slightly less than a quarter of the original structure has been uncovered. The present author understands that the width of the original structure can be deduced from reasonably supposing a line of symmetry. However, he remains skeptical about the hypothesized length of the structure. 19 Lenski, 183.

6 actively in regional imperial capitals” and overseen by local bishops.20 Regardless of patronage, both the Lateran Basilica and the Nisibene Cathedral undoubtably dominated their respective cityscapes. And both can be viewed as a visual reminder that the church now enjoyed the empire’s protection and support. The church of St. Ephrem was, from his youth, the “Church of the Empire.”21

While basilica and cathedral were being completed, a theological controversy was erupting in Egypt between an Alexandrian priest named Arius and his bishop Alexander.22 Arius taught that the true God is properly unoriginate/unbegotten (agen[n]ētos), whereas the Son of

God was begotten, had a beginning, and was thus subordinate.23 As this controversy spread out of Egypt and became a source of schism in the Church of the Empire, Constantine was busy consolidating imperial power under his sole rule. In 324 Constantine defeated Licinius, his eastern colleague. Empire was united; church was split; and Constantine urged unity.

20 For a discussion of Constantine’s church building projects, see Lenski, Constantine and the Cities, 179-196. See also Gregory T. Armstrong, “Imperial Church Building and Church-State Relations,” Church History 36 (1967), 3- 17. Lenski (p. 195) argues that “under Constantine, bishops would not have been wrong to claim they had “built” churches…, even if full disclosure would have required that they specify the money had come from the emperor’s res private.” 21 Sidney Griffith has convincingly argued that Ephrem’s career was in service to “the Church of the Empire” (a phrase he borrowed from Karl Baus). This phrase has become something of a leitmotiv in Griffith’s substantial work on St. Ephrem. For his first expression of the view, see Sidney H. Griffith, “Ephraem, the Deacon of Edessa, and the Church of the Empire,” in Diakonia: Studies in Honor of Robert T. Meyer, edited by Thomas Halton Williman and Joseph P. Amar, (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1986), 22-52. The present author has intentionally played on the polyvalence of the English word “church” and has recast Griffith’s commonly employed phrase to highlight a slightly different aspect of Ephrem’s relationship to the Church of the Empire. 22 For a general introduction to Patristic theology, which focuses on the development of ideas and the evolution of theological expression, see G.L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought (London: SPCK, 1964). For a meticulously articulate treatment of the theology of Nicaea and its reception and development in the fourth century, see Khaled Anatolios, Retrieving Nicaea: The Development and Meaning of Trinitarian Doctrine (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2011). For a brief introduction to the Christological authors of the fourth and fifth century, see Frances M. Young, From Nicaea to Chalcedon: A Guide to the Literature and its Background, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2010). For a brief narrative of the council and the events leading up to it, see Frend, Rise of Christianity, 492-501. 23 Prestige, God in Patristic Thought, 37-54. Anatolios, Retrieving Nicaea, 17-20, 42-47. Young, From Nicaea to Chalcedon, 42-48

In the following year, a council of 230 bishops met in Nicaea to discuss (among other things) the teaching of Arius and the correct expression of the doctrine of the trinity. Among the attendees was Jacob, bishop of Nisibis.24 And the Syriac Vita of Ephrem adds that Jacob took

Ephrem with him so that both contended “on behalf of the true faith” at the council.25 Although this biographical detail is not strictly factual, the narrative correctly associates Ephrem with a life-long commitment to proclaiming Nicaean orthodoxy in service of his bishops.26

According to the Chronicle of Edessa, Jacob of Nisibis died in the year 337/8.27 And

Ephrem relates that Jacob was buried within Nisibis, like a fruit within her womb (ʿubbā) and subsequently the fruit became a wall.28 Then Jacob’s protégé Babu succeeded him. According to Jean-Maurice Fiey, Babu died after 350 and was succeeded by Vologeses.29 During his episcopacy, Vologeses and a priest named Akepsimus oversaw the construction of the church’s baptistry, which was completed in 359/60.30 About two years after the completion of the

24 Fiey, Nisibe, 23. 25 Joseph Amar, “The Syriac ‘Vita’ Tradition of Ephrem the Syrian” (Ph.D. diss., CUA, 1988), 15-16, 214-215. See also idem, “Byzantine Ascetic Monachism and Greek Bias in the Vita Tradition of Ephrem the Syrian,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 58 (1992), 123-156. 26 See Griffith, “Ephraem, the Deacon.” For a more detailed treatment of Ephrem’s commitment to Nicaean orthodoxy, see Sidney H. Griffith, “Setting Right the Church of Syria: Saint Ephraem’s Hymns against Heresies,” in The Limits of Ancient Christianity: Essays on Late Antique Thought and Culture in Honor of R.A. Markus, eds. William E. Klingshirn and Mark Vessey (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1999), 97-114. 27 Chronicle of Edessa, §17. On the date of Jacob’s death, see R.W. Burgess, “The Dates of the First Siege of Nisibis and the Death of James of Nisibis,” Byzantion 69:1 (1999), 7-17. See also Fiey, Nisibe, 24-25. REF, 7.1.4. 28 Nis 13:19-21. Here Jacob is the wall (metaphorically speaking). Contra Burgess (8), these stanzas most certainly do not say that Jacob was buried inside the Nisibene walls. And contra C.S. Lightfoot, “Facts and Fiction: The Third Siege of Nisibis (AD 350),” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 37:1 (1988), 124. 29 Fiey, Nisibe, 28. Fiey explains that Ephrem depicted the episcopacy of Vologeses as being marked by peace. Thus, Babu must have died after the siege of 350. However, this argument is not very convincing. If there was conflict in Vologeses’ early ministry and peace thereafter, Ephrem could have focused on the latter peace to highlight the tripartite narrative that he was constructing. Griffith (passim), perhaps following Halleux, assigns the year 346 to Babu’s death. The present author has not seen enough evidence to date Babu’s death, but concedes that both 346 and 350 have a degree of verisimilitude. 30 On the baptistry’s dated Greek inscription, see Sebastian Brock, Hymns on Paradise: St. Ephrem the Syrian (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press), 11. Russell convincingly argues against Fergus Millar’s proposition that the Greek inscription implies that Greek was the official language of the church of Nisibis, see Russell, “Nisibis as the Background,” 203-207.

8 baptistry, Vologeses died and Abraham held the office until Nisibis came under Persian control in 363.31

The baptistry, located next to the cathedral, was originally a triple hall structure with an apse at the eastern end of each hall.32 The eastern portion of the center hall was recessed and likely held the baptismal font.33 The northern two halls still survive (albeit with some later modifications) and is currently in use as the Church of St. Jacob in Nusaybin, Turkey.34

Archaeological work on the collapsed southern hall suggests that its original structure was of a similar design to the surviving northern hall.35 And a crypt currently lies beneath the baptismal hall, which reportedly holds the body of Jacob. Kesser-Kayaalp and Erdoǧan argue that this crypt was part of the original structure and design.36 Perhaps, this is the “womb” of Nisibis where Jacob’s sarcophagus was buried.

Ephrem’s Teaching Songs on Nisibis (madrāšē da-nṣībīn) remain the principal source of information on the ministries of these first four bishops of Nisibis.37 But Ephrem emplots the first three bishops into a tripartite narrative that consistently casts Babu as an intermediary (in chronology and temperament) between Jacob and his successor Vologeses. So, if one divides the content from the form, one misses that Ephrem carefully shaped his information into triplets to

31 Fiey, Nisibene, says Vologeses died in 361/2. The Chronicle of Edessa (§23-24) says 360/361. Vologeses’ name suggests a possible Persian ethnic background, see Russell, “Nisibis as the Background,” 190-191. On the transfer of Nisibis to Persian control, see below. 32 Keser-Kayaalp and Erdoǧan, 143-151. 33 Ibid., 147. 34 The icon of St. Ephrem housed in the Syrian Orthodox Church of Diyarbakir, Turkey depicts a building with two doors and five windows. This depiction is likely the western face of the surviving structure. Thanks to Joshua Falconer, for suggesting a connection between this icon and the standing structure. 35 Keser-Kayaalp and Erdoǧan, 151. 36 Ibid., 151-152. 37 Nis 13-16 passim. According to Beck, these madrāšē were composed while Vologeses was still alive. See, Edmund Beck, Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Carmina Nisibena, CSCO 219 (Louvain: CSCO: Peeters, 1961), ii. Yet, Ephrem speaks of all three with the same tone of fond reminiscence in syntactic parallels. Thus, it seems more probable that Vologeses had already died. However, these songs do not speak of Vologeses’ successor. Therefore, the present author dates these madrāšē to the year of Vologeses’ death, but is willing to allow for a margin of error of several years on either side.

9 suit his rhetorical purposes. The interpreter of Ephrem must bear in mind that what can be known about one is conditioned by his relation to the other two. Now the rhetoric of the songs addressing Abraham differs significantly from the narrative reminiscences of the first three.

Therefore, these songs must be interpreted differently. Ephrem casts Abraham into a broader biblical narrative and offers advice and warning early in Abraham’s episcopacy. The former set of songs benefits from reflection; the latter collection is set in media res. The interpreter of

Ephrem must appreciate that the raw historical data on these four bishops is embedded within songs replete with complex rhetorical devices.38

According to Ephrem, the first three bishops were as different as sun and moon, but each provided Nisibis with his own season-appropriate light.39 Later, Ephrem alters the metaphor:

Jacob cleared the land through instruction in basic doctrine, Babu constructed a garden wall with careful scriptural interpretation and exposition, and Vologeses planted the seed with pleasant speeches.40 The first two spoke plainly (and sometimes harshly) to a young church, but

Vologeses spoke eloquently and gently to a mature church.41 During his life, Jacob cultivated

Nisibis as a fruit tree. And then after his death, his body became a fruit buried within the womb of Nisibis. This buried-fruit in turn became a wall that guarded the city from pruners.42 And within the walled-city (karkā) of Nisibis, each of these three Shepherds (rāʿawwātā) raised up his own successor and trained and sent out herdsmen (ʿallānē) in every direction.43 The narrative

38 The time is ripe for a new literary study of the Nisibene madrāšē, which interprets their historically rich content within the context of Ephrem’s rhetoric. That study should tease out who is the intended audience, the place of performance, and how Ephrem intends his audience to react. But this dissertation is not that study. The following is just a quick sketch that attempts to respect Ephrem’s rhetoric. 39 Nis 13. 40 Nis 14:3, 15-16. 41 Nis 14:18. See also, Nis 16:14-20, where Ephrem recasts the core of this narrative of succession into a personal account of his own interactions with the Bishops. 42 Nis 13:19, 21. 43 Nis 13:1, 14:1.

10 is guided by the twin themes of unity and growth in the midst of diversity as a result of proper episcopal succession.44

Ephrem further emphasizes this pattern of continuity and succession with his treatment of

Abraham. Before Vologeses died, he chose Abraham (361-363) with unanimity from among his herdsmen and disciples (talmīdē) to became the next bishop.45 Ephrem imagines that the first three bishops were looking down from heaven with approval upon this new shepherd that they had once shepherded.46 Unlike the songs about the first three Nisibene Bishops, which look back fondly, the songs addressed to Abraham look forward to his continued ministry.47 Ephrem encouraged Abraham to play to his strengths: since his speech was not great (mellayk zʿorān),48 he should focus on personally tending the flock, caring for the sick, piety, and good works.49

Ephrem dedicated himself to serving the church under these four bishops in Nisibis as well as bishop Barsai in Edessa.50 Later tradition remembers Ephrem as “the deacon of

Edessa.”51 And certainly, he was a deacon (mšammšānā) in the sense that his life was marked by service (tešmeštā) to the church; first in his beloved Nisibis, then in Edessa as a refugee.52 He counted himself among the fold of herdsmen (dayrā d-ʿallānē) who served the shepherds

44 On the importance of apostolic succession in Ephrem’s works, see Griffith, “Setting Right,” 107. And Griffith, “Ephraem, the Deacon,” 35-36. And for a general discussion of the theme of apostolic succession in early Syriac literature, see Robert Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom: A Study in Early Syriac Tradition (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2004), 178-182. 45 Nis 17:1, 5. 46 Nis 17:3. 47 Nis 17-21 passim. Ephrem upholds Abraham as the true successor of Vologeses. But perhaps, he was also concerned about Abraham’s inexperience. Further textual study into the rhetoric of these Teaching Songs is needed. 48 Nis 18:9. See also Nis. 19:9-10, where Abraham’s quietude is cast in an entirely positive light. 49 On tending the flock and caring for the sick, see Nis. 19:4-5, 20:2-5. On piety and good works, see Nis. 21:1-8. All in all, Ephrem seems to think that Abraham would serve the church best while interacting with individuals and small groups. 50 Halleux, “Saint Éphrem,” 330-3. 51 Palladius, Lausiac History, XL. 52 Russell suggests that scholarly imagination about Ephrem should appreciate that his late career was less that of a “deacon of Edessa” then a “Nisibene Refugee.” Russell, “Nisibis as the Background,” 184. And Griffith, who frequently applies the title “deacon of Edessa” to Ephrem, does not hesitate to call him a refugee as well. See Sidney H. Griffith, “Images of Ephraem: The Syrian Holy Man and His Church” Traditio 45 (1989-1990), 21.

(rāʿawwātā) by building enclosures (ṭyārē) around the flock (marʿītā) in and around Nisibis.53

During Ephrem’s life, a number of herdsmen were sent from the walled city into the surrounding countryside as pastors.54 And some were raised from the fold of herdsmen to become shepherds.

But Ephrem the herdsman stayed in the city until it came under Persian control and was never raised to the rank of shepherd. And even though he felt free to offer pointed advice and warning to Abraham in publicly performed songs, there is no hint that Ephrem felt slighted by being passed up for the office. As far as the meager evidence allows, it seems that he was quite pleased to remain a “bishop’s man” throughout his life.55

In particular, the Ephremic corpus suggests that he delighted in serving his bishops as a contemplative teacher, spiritual guide, and biblical exegete, who wrote some artful prose, but seemed to prefer communicating through verse homilies (mēmrē) and stanzaic teaching songs

(madrāšē).56 Ephrem saw himself as a pastor who employed carefully measured words to protect the flock from wolves.57 And while this pastor could be quite tender and empathetic toward the flock, he could be quiet fierce when countering those he deemed to be wolves encircling the flock with false teaching or wrong action.58

53 On Ephrem’s pastoral vocabulary, see ibid., 22-24. Sidney H. Griffith, “St. Ephraem, Bar Dayṣān and the Clash of Madrāshē in Aram: Readings in St. Ephraem’s Hymni contra Haereses” The Harp 21 (2006), 471-472. And for a general discussion of pastoral imagery in early Syriac literature, see Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom, 187- 191. 54 The present author wonders whether Ephrem would still call someone an ʿallānā after one commenced work outside of Nisibis or would one then become a rāʿyā. Certainly, a bishop (episkopos) is a rāʿyā as can be seen in the Greek baptistry inscription in Nisibis, which calls the rāʿyā Vologeses an episkopos. But is the converse necessarily true? In other words, are all rāʿawwātā bishops in Ephrem’s parlance? 55 Griffith calls Ephrem a “bishop’s man” in numerous articles to summarize Ephrem’s relationship of service to his bishops. First occurrence in print, Griffith, “Ephraem, the Deacon,” 25. 56 Ibid., 45. Idem., “Clash of Madrāshē,” 454. 57 Ibid., passim. 58 See translation and study in P.J. Botha, “The Poetic Face of Rhetoric: Ephrem’s Polemics against the Jews and Heretics in Contra Haereses XXV” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 2 (1991), 16-36.

Both Nisibis and Edessa were religiously diverse cities.59 And Ephrem spent substantial energy countering his diverse adversaries, while supporting the Church of the Empire. He categorized his adversaries into two broad groups of “insiders” (gawwāyē) and “outsiders”

(barrāyē).60 Chief among his insider adversaries were the so-called Arians (i.e. those who objected to the statement of faith formulated at the council of Nicaea).61 Whereas these insiders had received instruction and sacraments from within the church, the outsiders (such as Marcion,

Bar Dayṣān, and Mani) had long ago placed themselves entirely outside of the church.62 Indeed,

Ephrem was committed to theological positions originally formulated in Greek by those of the pro-Nicene party. But he chose to express himself in an idiom, which was thoroughly steeped in his own culture’s (primarily oral) literary traditions.63 And when he countered his opponents, he was not content to merely argue against their propositions. Rather, he would attack their whole system of suppositions and their mode of discourse.

Ephrem, like his Greek contemporaries (even his “Arian” adversaries), insisted upon the absolute ontological otherness of God.64 But unlike his “Arian” adversaries, he placed the Son of God on the divinity side of the ontological divide.65 And he opposed that theological method which approached God as an object of inquiry and led the investigator to set limits on (i.e.

59 On Nisibis, see Russell, “Nisibis as the Background,” 191-201. On Edessa, see Steven K. Ross, Roman Edessa: Politics and Culture on the Eastern Fringes of the Roman Empire, 114-242 CE (London and New York: Routledge, 2001), 83-101, 117-138. 60 Griffith, “Setting Right the Church,” 102. 61 In addition to Ephrem’s mēmrē and madrāšē On the Faith, see ibid., 102-108. See also, Kees den Biesen, Simple and Bold: Ephrem’s Art of Symbolic Thought (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2006), 77-85. And P.J. Botha, “Ephrem’s Comparison of the Father/Son Relationship to the Relationship between a Tree and its Fruit in his Hymns on Faith” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 4 (1993), 23-32. And Frances M. Young, From Nicaea to Chalcedon: A Guide to the Literature and its Background, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010), 174-185. On the problems associated with the designation “Arian” for all those who rejected Nicaea, see Anatolios, Retrieving Nicaea, 17-27. 62 Griffith, “Setting Right the Church,” 102. In the early 2000’s Griffith wrote a series of articles Ephrem’s treatment of this troika of “outsiders” in his Madrāšē Contra Haereses. See bibliography for further reference. 63 Griffith, “Clash of Madrāshē,” 453. 64 Anatolios, Retrieving Nicaea, 36-47. 65 Sebastian Brock, The Luminous Eye: The Spiritual World Vision of Saint Ephrem (Kalamazoo, Michigan: Ciscercian Publications, 1985), 26-27

13 define) that which is fundamentally illimitable.66 Ephrem was not anti-intellectual, but he insisted that the finite human mind could not contain infinite God within its conceptions, definitions, and propositions. Instead, Ephrem expressed his theological vision as a dialectical tension between fear and love.67 Where love for God spurs a person to speak directly to God and rightly about God. Whereas fear and awe bring an awareness of God’s majesty and lead to silent adoration. The majority of Ephrem’s vast poetic corpus can fruitfully be read as a working through the tensions created by the polarity “fear and love.”

But perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Ephrem was less concerned with the trajectory of theological conversation in general, than the type of discourse that would become the public expression of the church.68 The following two chapters will explore more fully the type of language that Ephrem chose for liturgical expression in song (Chapter 2) and in homily

(chapter 3). But the succinct summary of Sidney Griffith will suffice for the nonce, “Ephraem would allow only the kaleidoscopic language of biblical typology, which spilled over into metaphors and symbols borrowed from the natural order, but which never went beyond the contemplative, liturgical medium of poetry and song.”69

Ephrem was not a teacher of abstract propositions, but a contemplative and spiritual teacher. And as such, he dedicated himself to a celibate life. He was an īḥīdāyā; a Syriac term which is powerfully polyvalent.70 And the two giants of fourth century Syriac literature—

Ephrem and his contemporary Aphrahat—loved to play with such polyvalent terms while teasing out every possible association which fit their didactic purpose. The adjective īḥīdāy could

66 Ibid., 23-25. Griffith, “Ephraem, the Deacon,” 43-47. 67 For an insightful and in depth study of this polarity, see den Biesen, Simple and Bold. 68 Griffith, “Ephraem, the Deacon,” 46. 69 Ibid. 70 Griffith, “Asceticism in the Church of Syria: The Hermeneutics of Early Syrian Monasticism” in Asceticism, ed. Vincent Wimbush and Richard Valantasis (New York: Oxford UP, 1995), 223-229.

14 simply be glossed as lone. But in Aphrahat and Ephrem, the substantivized form of the adjective

(īḥīdāyā) was employed in all its polyvalence to refer to an individual who has a single-minded devotion to the unique-one, while living out an unmarried, single-life in imitation of Christ, the only begotten. And Aphrahat establishes a direct (and intimate) connection between the sole

Christ and the singles, in a word play typical of Syriac authors: “The only-begotten (√yḥd) from the bosom of the Father gladdens (√ḥdy) all the singles (√yḥd).”71 Here, the action of the singular īḥīdāyā towards the plural īḥīdāyē is expressed with a verb whose triconsonantal root is a rearrangement of the shared root of the subject and object.

Through imitation of Christ, an īḥīdāyā at baptism becomes a living depiction of Christ, who is seen in service to the local community.72 But in later Syriac tradition, the word subtly shifts meaning and is adapted as part of the ascetic vocabulary influenced by Egyptian monastic traditions, which were enthusiastically adopted by holy men in the environs of Edessa in the fifth and sixth centuries.73 In that context the term no longer denoted a “single in God’s service,” but the withdrawn solitary ‘holy man’ vividly depicted in the hagiography.74

As an īḥīdāyā, Ephrem was a member of a community of men and women, who were collectively called the bnay qyāmā. Some authors have said that the terms bnay qyāmā and

īḥīdāyā are synonymous.75 However, it would be more precise to say that the two terms refer to the same group within the church, but each term has its own semantic point of reference that leads to a unique set of theological and spiritual associations. The phrase bnay qyāmā can

71 Aph 6.6.3-4. 72 Griffith, “Asceticism,” 226-7. George Nedungatt, “The Covenanters of the Early Syriac-Speaking Church” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 39 (1973), 438-440. 73 Joseph Amar, “Byzantine Ascetic Monachism and Greek Bias in the Vita Tradition of Ephrem the Syrian,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 58 (1992), 124-5. See also, Griffith, “Images of St. Ephraem,” 10-11, 18-20. 74 See Peter Brown, “The Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity” The Journal of Roman Studies 61 (1971), 80-101. For an introduction to Syriac hagiographical sources, see Sebastian P. Brock, “Saints in Syriac: A Little-Tapped Resource” Journal of Early Christian Studies 16.2 (2008), 181-196. 75 Likely, this manner of speaking ultimately derives from Nedungatt, “Covenanters,” 209-210.

15 serviceably be translated as “Sons of the Covenant” or “Covenanters.”76 For the Syriac term qyāmā can signify what an English speaker signifies by “covenant.” In a groundbreaking article on the “Covenanters,” George Nedungatt argues that “the qyāmā of the Covenanters was the equivalent of a perpetual vow of chastity” and a “public profession of celibacy.”77 For in early

Syriac Christianity, the Covenanters consisted of male and female singles (īḥīdāyē) who were either virgins (btulē) or married folk who had renounced intimate relations (qaddīšē).78

Yet, as with the term īḥīdāyā, Aphrahat and Ephrem played on the polyvalence of the root (√qwm) and drew out as many associations as benefited their discourse. The basic sense of the verb of this root can be glossed “to rise,” “to stand,” or “to remain.” And in addition to the sense “covenant,” the noun qyāmā can indicate “stance,” “station,” or “status.” And the related noun, qyāmtā, is the word typically used to signify “resurrection.” Griffith has shown that

Aphrahat and Ephrem shape their discourse on the bnay qyāmā around these many associations.79 So those who made a covenant of sexual renunciation had a special status within the community to stand as a reminder that Christ rose from the dead bodily. And through their stance their bodies prefigured a bodily resurrection. And their station within the community indicated that they would remain ready for service to the church.80 In Ephrem’s day, the bnay qyāmā were closely associated with pastoral service. Thus, Griffith rightly emphasized that this asceticism was “a learned and pastorally active asceticism.”81

Ephrem’s own expression of his vision as a celibate Pastor-Poet can conveniently conclude this section:

76 Anglophone authors tend to use one of these two translations or simply transliterate the Syriac. The present author prefers the latter term, because its low frequency in English allows one to invest the word with the sundry associations of the Syriac. 77 Nedungatt, “Covenanters,” 437, 443. 78 Ibid., 211-2. Griffith, “Asceticism,” 223. 79 Ibid., 229-234. 80 Ibid. 81 Griffith, “Images of St. Ephraem,” 28.

O Lord, let not the works of your ‘herdsman’ go for naught, so that I will not have troubled your flock but as much as I was able, I will have kept the wolves away from it. And to the best of my ability I will have built enclosures of madrāšē for the sheep of your pasture. Pains are distressing me, debts are disquieting me; may they be overcome by your grace.82

The Walls of Nisibis

After nearly four decades of peace between Rome and Persia, hostilities began to boil over into fresh conflict.83 In 337, the King of Kings Shapur II, whose long reign was nearly concurrent with Ephrem’s life, amassed his forces for a new campaign.84 Meanwhile,

Constantine set out on an expedition to the east, but he died (May 22, 337) in route near

Nicomedia.85 His son, Constantius II, would soon begin to command the armies in

Mesopotamia, but he choose to attend to his father’s funeral rites first. From the subsequent conflicts between Constantius and Shapur, it would seem that the terms of the treaty of 299 continued to be acceptable to the Romans, but not the Persians. Contemporary Roman historians and panegyrists would depict Constantius as one who defended the realm against the repeated aggressions of Shapur.86 And when the emperor launched attacks against the Persians, these were

82 CH 56:10. Translated by Griffith, “Clash of Madrāshē,” 471-2. 83 For a brief introduction to the fourth century conflicts, see Dignas and Winter, Rome and Persia, 32-34, 60-62, 88-94. For a collection of primary sources pertaining to the renewal of hostilities in the year 337, see REF, 6.4.2. 84 REF, 6.1.1. 85 See Averil Cameron, “The Reign of Constantine, AD 306-337,” in The Cambridge Ancient History: The Crisis of Empire AD 193-337, vol. XII, 2nd ed., eds. Alan K. Bowman, Peter Garnsey, and Averil Cameron (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005), 105-106. 86 Robin Seager, “Perceptions of Eastern Frontier Policy in Ammianus, Libanius, and Julian (337-363),” The Classical Quarterly 47:1 (1997), 253-268. Similarly, Ephrem praises Constantius for preserving the realm rather than seeking to conquer new territory. This praise was juxtaposed with the criticism of Julian who sought out victories in Persia. See, CJ 4:15-16.

17 construed as preemptive strikes or just reprisals.87 In conformity with this narrative,

Constantius’ reign is marked by reinforcing border fortifications, securing allies, and removing internal rivals to maintain the lands secured by the treaty of 299.88

In general, Roman and Persian fortified sites were not located at the edge of their respective empire’s zone of control.89 Forts, camps, and fortified cities were a rear base for mobile armies to rest and resupply as they either defended the region or launched attacks on neighboring hostile sites. The control of a fortification gave a greater degree of control over the nearby roads and rivers. This allowed the controlling empire’s supplies and troops to pass through the region with relative speed and safety.90 The mobility of troops, in turn, provided a greater degree of protection for outlying farms and livestock.

The walled city (karkā) of Nisibis was a strategic node in keeping the East Roman frontier armies mobile. Yet Nisibis was not alone in the defense of the Northern Mesopotamian front. Beside the Tigris lay the fort of Beth Zabde to the northeast and the city of Amida to the northwest.91 Singara, a fortress which was at this time evolving into a fortified city, lay in the desert to the southeast.92 And quite near to Nisibis were the minor fortifications at Castra

Maurorum and Sisara.93 Roads and rivers connected these frontier fortifications. And Nisibis was at the crossroads.

87 Seager, 261. 88 David Hunt, “The Successors of Constantine,” in The Cambridge Ancient History: The Later Empire AD 337-425, vol. XIII, eds. Averil Cameron and Peter Garnsey (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998), 12-13. 89 C.R. Whittaker, Frontiers of the Roman Empire: A Social and Economic Study (Baltimore and London: John Hopkins UP, 1994), 31-59. 90 Whittaker, Frontiers, 91-131. 91 On Shapur’s treatment of the inhabitants of Beth Zabde, see The Acts of the Martyrs of Bezabde translated in REF, 215-219. For a discussion of the location of Beth Zabde, see ibid., 389-90 n. 19. On Shapur’s siege of Beth Zabde, see Amm., XX:7. On Shapur’s siege of Amida in 359, see Amm., XIX:1-9. For an insightful look at the intertexuality of Ammianus’ account, see Alan J. Ross, “Constantius and the Sieges of Amida and Nisibis: Ammianus’ Relationship with Julian’s Panegyrics,” Acta Classica 57 (2014), 127-154. 92 David Kennedy and Derrick Riley, Rome’s Desert Frontier: From the Air, (London: Batsford Limited, 1990), 125-131. On Shapur’s assault on Singara, see REF, 7.3.4-7.4.1. 93 Amm., XVIII:6.

But roads and rivers could carry an army in either direction. And Shapur led his forces along these same paths to attack each of those fortified sites. In particular, Shapur besieged

Nisibis three times. At the beginning of Constantius’ reign, in the Summer of 337 (or perhaps

338), Shapur crossed the border and laid siege to Nisibis for approximately two months.94 While many sources mention the siege, few historically reliable details emerge. Furthermore, the details of the first and third sieges underwent some degree of conflation in the sources.95 What can be known is that the city, being left to its own defenses, held and Shapur retreated. And many believed that the prayers of Jacob of Nisibis delivered the city from certain peril.

Even though Shapur abandoned this siege, Nisibis would remain one of his primary targets in future campaigns. Both the Romans and the Persians recognized the strategic importance of Nisibis and acted accordingly. A decade later, in 346, Shapur besieged the city a second time and was rebuffed again.96 Then Shapur returned in 350 with a new siege strategy.97

The Persians built ditches and siege mounds. These earthworks doubled as a dam for the river

Mygdonius, which ran alongside Nisibis. Then the backed-up river was used to batter the city’s walls, thereby opening a breach. Defenders held the breach, while the inhabitants sleeplessly repaired the wall. Fortunate for the inhabitants, the deep mud created by the river’s redirection impeded the Persian assault. So, the residents of Nisibis broke siege a third time.

94 For primary sources, see REF, 7.1.3. See also R.W. Burgess, “The Dates of the First Siege,” 7-17. Burgess argues that the first siege of Nisibis and the death of Jacob of Nisibis were both in the summer of 337 (and not 338). This may be true, but several aspects of that argument failed to convince the present author. Since the assignment of a particular year to the siege has no bearing upon the present narrative, the present author will let the date stand. Moreover, despite some of the weaknesses of this article, it remains the most in depth treatment of the relevant sources. 95 See Lightfoot, “Facts and Fiction,” 111-112. In general, siege accounts in historical narratives tend to exhibit a large degree of ‘intertextuality’ and conflation. See the insightful treatment of this topic in Ross, “Constantius and the Sieges of Amida and Nisibis,” 127-154. 96 REF, 7.4.5. 97 Ibid., 7.5.5. The following narrative is a summary of the reconstruction in Lightfoot, “Facts and Fiction,” 114- 121.

Ephrem memorialized the deliverance of Nisibis from this third siege in several of his

Teaching Songs on Nisibis. In the first song, he dramatizes the siege by having the city herself recount the events and pray for God’s deliverance, while reminding God (and the choir) that the church of Nisibis is founded on orthodox teaching:

The flood surged and dashed our wall. All sustaining power uphold it. Let it not fall as a sand structure. For I built not my teaching on sand. May bedrock be foundations for me. For on Your Rock, I built my faith. Hidden foundation of my confidence, bear up my walls.98

And in the second song, Ephrem recounts the praise of the people on account of their city’s deliverance. And he heightens the miraculous deliverance by highlighting that God saved them while the wall was broken and the emperor was absent:

[God] saved us without wall; and taught: He is our wall. He saved us without king; and taught: He is our king.99

After the siege was lifted, the region experienced a period of peace. And a decade later, just before the peace was broken, Ephrem would look back upon these three sieges and recall that the

“three-fold Divinity (tlītātāh d-alāhūtā) drew [Nisibis] out of three seas.”100

98 Nis 1:8a. The Syriac lines are 7 or 8 syllables with a midline caesura (3+4, 4+3 or 4+4) with a single extra line of 4 syllables. Here the lines are translated with an eye toward brevity and the relative weight of the measure. The present author sees a small degree of merit in assigning the song’s composition date to the time of the siege, since the narrative places the audience in the middle of the siege. Yet, the dramatization of events could just as easily be an effective literary device for reminding the audience of their shared traumatic past. 99 Nis 2:2a. The 5+5 syllable lines are translated here as 6+6.

The roads and rivers which occasionally brought armies to northern Mesopotamia also regularly brought trade. For frontier regions, in general, tend to attract trade of both local and exotic goods.101 Moreover, the treaty of 299 multiplied the economic growth of Nisibis by making it the sole location of trade between the empires. The Expositio Totius Mundi et

Gentium (an exposition on the “whole world” during the reign of Constantius) also testifies to the prestige of Nisibis in trade (and war):

Mesopotamia has many different cities, two of which, as I shall describe, are outstanding. They are Nisibis and Edessa which have the most remarkable people of all: astute in business and skilled in the chase. In particular they are rich and adorned with all good things. For what they receive from Persia, they sell to all Roman territory, and purchase (goods) for exporting to them in return, besides iron and bronze, because it is not permitted to give iron and bronze to the enemy. They have famous walls which always break down the courage of the Persians in time of war. Buoyant with trade, they enjoy a high standard of living together with the rest of the Province.102

Moreover, the importance of trade can be seen throughout Ephrem’s works, which are replete with financial imagery.103 Even the most casual reading of Ephrem’s corpus could multiply examples of mercantile imagery. Thus, a single example, taken from the fourth

Teaching Song on the Holy Fast, will suffice to show how Ephrem employs this imagery to develop a spiritual theme. Here two paradoxical trades are contrasted:

See! the profitable fast— let’s take of its treasure and profit by its sum. For, in the beginning, Adam traded a loss for food and was impoverished. See! it profits us—

100 Nico 10:155-156. Here, the term “sea” is probably a metaphor, but a metaphor that has been colored by the centrality of water in the third siege. 101 Whittaker, Frontiers, 98-131. Unfortunately, Whittaker’s analysis focuses almost exclusively upon the West Roman frontier, because archaeological research is much more advanced in Western European sites. 102 REF, 221. The fame of the walls of Nisibis predated the Romano-Persian conflict. See Russell, “Nisibis as the Background,” 187. 103 For a thorough discussion of mercantile imagery in Ephrem’s praise of Abraham Qidunaya, see Andrew Hayes, “The Rhetoric and Themes of the Madrāšā Cycle in Praise of Abraham Qīdunāyā Attributed to Ephrem the Syrian” (Ph.D. diss., CUA, 2012), 98-117.

the fast which repays the debts of Adam, impoverishes bellies, fills the soul’s treasury with living merchandise.104

Since Ephrem frequently develops such spiritual themes with financial imagery, his works should be read with an awareness of the vibrant Nisibene trade culture. And later this dissertation will show that the presence of an active mercantile class with its endemic corruption also presented this Nisibene preacher with a significant pastoral problem.

In addition to war and trade, roads also carried rumor and official correspondence. And late in the summer of 358, news of a cataclysmic earthquake in Nicomedia spread like wildfire through the empire; and tales of the resulting mass extermination in rubble and fire reached as far as Nisibis.105 And as travelers carrying various vignettes of this tragedy sped east toward

Nisibis, official messengers were speeding back and forth a correspondence between Shapur and

Constantius, which presaged renewed conflict in Mesopotamia. As tales trickled into Nisibis of the destroyed city of Nicomedia, Ephrem was profoundly struck to the heart and immediately began to compose a series of homilies on the earthquake.106 And while most of these homilies are not known to survive in their original Syriac, a fifth century (?) Armenian translation numbering as many as sixteen homilies remains.107

104 Fast 4:2a. The present author’s translation shares several features with a forthcoming translation by Joshua Falconer. 105 Amm., XVII:7. 106 For an insightful study on these homilies along with text and translation, see Charles Renoux, Éphrem de Nisibe Mēmrē sur Nicomédie: Édition des Fragments de l’Original Syriaque et de la Version Arménienne, Traduction Française, Introduction et Notes PO 37:2,3 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1975). Renoux argues that these mēmrē are authentic works of Ephrem composed in the Spring of 359. The present author finds his arguments quite convincing, but prefers to say that Ephrem began to compose these sermons as soon as news of the earthquake arrived in the Fall of 358 and were delivered from late 358 to the Spring of 359. In other words, he prefers to emphasize that composition and delivery were a process that stretched through time. And by consequence, information available to Ephrem about events (near and far) were evolving between the delivery of series. 107 The Armenian version survives almost complete: the first is almost entirely lost, the second is lost, the third is partially incomplete, but the rest survives. For a convenient chart detailing the surviving portions in Syriac and Armenian, see ibid., xx. On the dating of the Armenian translation, see ibid., xvii.

Ephrem vividly depicted the horrors of this tragedy and enjoined his audience to mourn the dead of Nicomedia.108 He recounted that the once serene and splendid city was struck by wrath. Nicomedia’s children were howling in the streets, as others were silently smothered by collapsed buildings. The city was instantly annihilated and Ephrem rebuked his audience for their levity and lack of empathy, “Comment la bouche rirait-elle, / quand les bouches se turent à l’improviste?”109 He also warned Nisibis to flee from sin, and turn to mournful repentance so wrath would turn from her.110 Assuming that the current order of the series reflects something of the order of delivery, it seems that Ephrem’s focus began to shift from a lamentation over

Nicomedia’s dead to a warning against another sort of wrath approaching Nisibis.111

Probably before Ephrem began this sermon series, negotiations between Shapur and

Constantius had broken down and Persia had already begun to muster her forces.112 “When the first rumours of this were confirmed by reliable reports,” writes Ammianus, “overwhelming fear of imminent disaster kept everyone in suspense.”113 And likely before Ephrem had completed the Nicomedian series, news had already come to Nisibis of the westward movement of Shapur’s armies in the Spring of 359.114

108 Nico 8:373-396. 109 Nico 8:387-8. Translated by Renoux, Mēmrē sur Nicomédie, 135. 110 Ibid., xxiii. 111 Renoux seems to take the chronological order for granted. The present author thinks that ascribing a roughly chronological order to the homilies could be a useful working hypothesis to test in further research. He suspects that a more precise statement would be that the present order reflects what a near contemporary collator assumed to be the chronology. 112 Amm., XVII.5, XVIII.4. 113 Amm., XVIII.4.2. Translation from Walter Hamilton, tr., Ammianus Marcellinus: The Later Roman Empire AD 254-378 (London: Penguin Books, 1986), 149. 114 Renoux, Mēmrē sur Nicomédie, xxi-xxv.

The Loss of Nisibis

In response to the Persian threat, a master of cavalry Ursicinus was named master of infantry in the east and sent to Mesopotamia to prepare the region for the coming conflict.115 He brought with him his staff officer Ammianus, who would later record his eye witness account of the events of 359 within his Res Gestae.116 Ursicinus assumed that Shapur would besiege Nisibis a fourth time, so his company hastened to make siege preparations there.117 And when they arrived, they saw from the walls of Nisibis a continuous line of Persian campfires stretching toward the Tigris in the direction of Castra Maurorum and Sisara (i.e. northeastward).118 They took this as clear evidence that a marauding band of enemies (hostium vastatorias manus) had burst over the banks of the Tigris.119 From the perspective of those who looked out from the

Nisibene walls, they were devastators (vastatores) bringing destruction prior to the arrival of the main force. From Persian strategic perspective, these marauders were likely tasked with securing supplies before the Romans had a chance to either protect or destroy them.120 In fact, the crops around Nisibis were burning by the time that Shapur arrived on the scene.121

Hindsight shows that Nisibis was spared the devastation of a fourth siege, but the pastorally minded Ephrem was alert to the dangers of the invasion as the marauders were still on

115 John Matthews, The Roman Empire of Ammianus: With a New Introduction, revised ed. (Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Classical Press, 2007), 33-39. 116 Ibid., 39-47. Ammianus’ desire to absolve his commanding officer of any guilt associated with that year’s disastrous siege of Amida, has led some scholars to a justified degree of suspicion regarding the biases of his first- person narrative. However, the account concerning Nisibis, which precedes the siege, does not seem to carry with it the same degree of bias. See R.C. Blockley, “Ammianus Marcellinus on the Persian Invasion of AD 359,” Phoenix 42:3 (1988): 244-260. And Ross, “Constantius and the Sieges of Amida and Nisibis,” 137-140. The former primarily focuses on the pro-Ursicinus bias and the later on the significance of the first-person narrative. 117 Amm. XVIII:6.8-9. 118 Ibid. 119 Ibid. 120 This is the present author’s interpretation of the strategic function of these marauders. The destruction of food stuffs was a common practice when abandoning a threatened region. On the purpose of these early raids, Blockley simply says, “the nature of this action was unclear.” Blockley, “Persian Invasion of AD 359,” 52. Presumably, he intends that the action was unclear to the contemporaries, but he does not hazard his own interpretation of the Persian movements. 121 Amm. XVIII:7.8

24 approach. For the city was “on the verge of an attack” and Ephrem counseled repentance of sins, lest the city experience wrath like those in the destroyed city of Nicomedia.122 “Come, let us weep over our sins (√ḥwb),” he intones, “lest we weep over our darlings (√ḥbb).”123 The flock that Ephrem tended had due cause to fear for their lives in 359, so Ephrem reminded his audience that donning sackcloth effected their deliverance from past incursions.124

Ursicinus desired to prepare nearby fortifications for the impending invasion. And fearing that their company would soon be trapped by an imminent siege, they swiftly left

Nisibis.125 But when they were just two miles from the city, they came across a small child, who was abandoned by his mother as she fled for her life. Ursicinus tasked Ammianus with returning the child to Nisibis. However, by the time Ammianus had returned to the city, plunderers had already surrounded the walls and had begun to roam the surrounding area (circumvallato murorum ambitu praedatores latius vagabantur).126

This was not a siege, but a haphazard blockade. And it seems that the effort was not sufficient to shut down all movement in and out of the city. For it did not stop Ammianus from returning the child to a half-opened postern gate.127 Even though it was not a siege, the danger was real. And the inhabitants of Nisibis who lived through three recent sieges would have recalled their previous plight with trepidation, while fearing that the current blockade would soon evolve into an outright siege. However, it seems that the ‘plunderers’ only intended to slow the

122 Translated from French translation of the Armenian, Nico 10:477-8. On the call to repentance, see Nico 10-15 passim. 123 Translated from the Syriac, Nico 14:33-34. 124 Nico 15:97-130. For a reading of sections of Homily 15 as it applies to the Persian campaign of 359, see David Bundy, “Bishop Vologese and the Persian Siege of Nisibis in 359 C.E.: A Study in Ephrem’s Mēmrē on Nicomedia,” Encounter 63.1-2 (2002): 55-63. Of course, David Bundy’s scholarship should be approached with due caution as the glaring historically inaccurate title of his article suggests. Bundy misses that the siege descriptions in Homily 15 were describing the community’s shared past, not their present plight. Nevertheless, Bundy’s article is important for drawing attention to these neglected homilies. 125 Amm. XVIII:6.10. 126 Ibid. 127 Amm. XVIII:6.11.

25 movement of supplies and information in the region, while securing whatever advantage presented itself.

Ammianus, knowing his own danger, left the city at a full gallop and was promptly pursued by plunderers.128 A dramatic chase followed. And when Ammianus met up with his company, the chase continued. And they only escaped the enemy by a diversionary trick. The chase narrative confirms what they had seen on the city’s walls: the region to the northeast of

Nisibis was filled with bands of pillagers (catervae praedatorum).129 Still fearing pursuit,

Ursicinus and company hastened to Amida, whereupon the first-person narrative of Ammianus’ hones in on the details of the siege that happened there.130 Meanwhile Harran, situated due east of Nisibis, was temporarily abandoned due to the weakness of its fortifications.131 And the crops in the region were destroyed lest they become food for the invaders. As if in passing, Ammianus briefly narrates that “the kings (i.e. Shapur and the kings of the Chionitae) passed by Nisibis without thinking it worthwhile to halt.”132 And as they passed by, the Persians encountered already burning crops.

Shapur captured Amida and slaughtered the population.133 By then the campaigning season of 359 had come to an end, so he withdrew his forces from the region to return the following spring. In 360, Shapur destroyed Singara after a successful siege and resettled her population throughout Persia.134 Then, he captured Beth Zabde: slaughtering many, resettling some.135 Then he rebuilt the fortifications as a strategic Persian outpost. And Constantius

128 Amm. XVIII:6.11-15. 129 Amm. XVIII:6.16. 130 Amm. XIX. 131 Amm. XVIII:7.3. 132 Amm. XVIII:7.8. Translation from Hamilton, Ammianus, 157. 133 Amm. XIX: 8:3-4. On the movements of Shapur and Constantius in 359-361, see Hunt, “The Successors of Constantine,” 39-43. 134 Amm. XX:6. 135 Amm. XX:7. See n.91 above.

26 unsuccessfully attempted to recapture Beth Zabde.136 The strength of Roman Mesopotamia was slackening; Nisibis still stood, but her neighbors were falling fast. And doubtless Ephrem and his fellow citizens, who were royal subjects of Rome, were becoming increasingly apprehensive about being resettled into Persia.

After the conflicts of 359, the Roman east desperately needed more troops. And

Constantius heard that Julian’s campaign in Gaul had reached a satisfactory conclusion, so he ordered Julian’s troops to be redeployed to the east.137 However, by the time news reached

Julian, it was too late in the year for troops to be redeployed. Moreover, even at the best of times, redeployment across the sprawling Empire would have taken considerable time. And these were not the best of times. In 360, Julian took the opportunity to make a power play in

Paris.138 The Caesar openly rebelled and allowed himself to be named Augustus.

So, when the Gallic troops finally began to move east in the spring of 361, they moved against Constantius in support of Julian.139 Meanwhile Shapur, fortuitously (and inexplicably), spent that spring withdrawing from Roman territory. Thereupon, Constantius abandoned his efforts in the east to confront his imperial rival. It seemed as if these two rivals were due to meet near the Bosporus in the following spring. But, while Julian was in Naissus, Constantius grew ill and died (Nov. 3, 361) in Cilicia.140 Then on his deathbed, Constantius named his rival as his successor.141

136 Amm. XX:7. 137 On the movements of Julian in 361-362, see David Hunt, “Julian,” in The Cambridge Ancient History: The Later Empire AD 337-425, vol. XIII, eds. Averil Cameron and Peter Garnsey (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998), 56-73. 138 Ibid., 56-57. 139 Ibid., 58-59. 140 Hunt, “The Successors of Constantine,” 43. 141 Ibid.

First in Constantinople then in Antioch, the sole emperor Julian publicly displayed his pagan heritage and began to restore the empire to its pre-Constantinian constitution.142 Yet

Julian was no longer in Paris where recently he had been enthusiastically proclaimed Augustus, but in lands which were more sympathetic to his predecessor. And before Julian could bring the citizens of Antioch to accept his classicizing vision for the empire, he embarked on his last fateful campaign on March 5, 363.

Julian, wanting to catch the Persians by surprise, set out from Antioch and came to

Harran two weeks later.143 From there, the roads leading to Persia forked and Julian split his army.144 He sent the smaller force east through Nisibis to meet up with the Armenian king

Arsaces. According to Ammianus, Julian had three reasons for sending this force east: 1) to protect the Armenian/Mesopotamian front, 2) to obfuscate his own movements, 3) to reinforce his own expedition later in the campaigning season.145 Whatever Julian’s reasons for splitting the army, our sources do not mention the subsequent movements of this smaller division. And maybe the fate of Nisibis would have been different, if this force had eventually followed the

Tigris down to meet Julian’s division near Seleucia-Ctesiphon.

Perhaps, while Julian was in Harran making preparations and sacrifices, he composed a letter to be carried by the diversionary force unto the leaders of Nisibis.146 For Ephrem says about Julian:

142 Hunt, “Julian,” 60-73. 143 Amm. XXIII:2-3. Zos. 3.12.1-2. 144 Amm. XXIII:3. Zos 3.12.3. 145 Amm. XXIII:3. See also R.T. Ridley, “Notes on Julian’s Persian Expedition (363),” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 22.2 (1973): 318-319. 146 Having studied Julian’s movements since his ascension, the present author thinks that Julian’s letter about his campaign makes most sense if sent from Harran. Since Julian was trying to keep his movements secret, he likely would not have sent a missive to Nisibis from Antioch (even less from Constantinople) outlining his intentions to invade Persia. Nor would it make sense for Julian to send a letter with promises after his invasion had begun.

He soothsayed and promised; he wrote and sent to us: He would descend and tread; he would lay Persia bare; and rebuild Singara— The threat of his letter— Nisibis to be raised by his descent.147

This is obviously not a transcription of an actual letter. And if there was such a letter sent by the emperor to Nisibis, it would be unlikely that Ephrem had it before him as he composed his song.

Yet, the notion of Julian sending such a letter to the inhabitants of Nisibis from Harran as he prepared his descent into Persia carries with it a high degree of verisimilitude.

The tightly constructed stanza stacks up verb after verb arrayed with simple conjunction.148 Ephrem syntactically associates the emperor’s false oracle with the monotony of broken promise stacked upon broken promise. Hearing Julian’s promises rehearsed and sung after those promises had shown themselves hollow would have created a bitter sense of dramatic irony—and make no mistake, Ephrem was bitter!149 From Ephrem’s perspective, the letter made false promises, but more importantly it contained a hidden threat. When the letter first arrived, the audience would have heard the promise that their beloved city was to be “raised.” But later that year as they recalled the letter, they heard the threat—Julian threatened that our beloved city would be “razed!” Or rather, this is the best English can convey the word play that Ephrem deploys. It appears that Julian said Nisibis was to be exalted (eštaqlat), but now rhetorically shaped hindsight heard him threaten with the same word that she was to be captured or transferred.

147 CJ 2:15a. The meter of a stanza in this short song cycle is 5+5/5+5/5+5/5+2/5+5/5+5. The metrics units translated throughout this chapter as 6 and 4 syllables respectively. 148 Eighteen of the first twenty-five syllables constitute verbs! 149 Historians (rightly) mine Ephrem’s Teaching Songs Contra Julian for their historical facts. But the extreme, bitter grief rarely enters into the discussion. The present author thinks that a trauma informed study of these songs is long overdue.

Probably by the time that Nisibis had received this letter, Julian had begun his promised descent. His division of the army shot southward down the river Belias until it merged with the

Euphrates near Callinicum (March 27).150 Now with their supplies ferried by a fleet, they sped swiftly southeast along the Euphrates toward Cercusium where they crossed the Khabur river, passing into Persian territory.151 Speed being their chief stratagem, they hastened toward

Seleucia-Ctesiphon—ignoring some fortifications; besieging others (seizing supplies, slaughtering survivors); and occasionally finding some depopulated fortifications with supplies intact.152 Both sides suffered great losses, but the Roman expedition kept its momentum until they were in the environs of their destination.

In May, their momentum faltered. Julian’s forces found themselves within striking distance of too many fortifications.153 The laden supply fleet was torched to keep the ships out of enemy hands and to free the fleet handlers to become active troops.154 The Persians, seeing the Roman supplies burning, strategically set fire to their own crops and began to sap their would be besiegers with an incessant hit and run policy.155 Through May and into June, the invaders were still winning engagements, but they were losing by attrition as their troops and foodstuffs were rapidly dwindling.156 And their morale fared no better. Then on June 26, amid a confused skirmish, Julian was mortally wounded and subsequently died in his tent in the dead of night.157

150 Amm. XXIII:3. 151 Amm. XXIII:5. Zos 3.13. 152 Amm. XXIV:1-2. Zos 3.14-20. 153 Amm. XXIV:3-6. 154 Amm. XXIV:7. Zos 3.26. See also Ridley, “Julian’s Persian Expedition,” 322. Ephrem interprets this in a negative light, see CJ 3:15. 155 Amm: XXIV:7-25:1. Zos 3.27-28. 156 Amm. XXIV:7-25:1. 157 Amm. XXV:3. Zos 3.29. See also Hunt, “Julian,” 76-77.

On the following day, the army’s officers elected Jovian as the new emperor.158 Shortly thereafter, the Romans—being thoroughly demoralized—entered into peace negotiations with

Shapur.159 And their dire situation left the inexperienced Roman negotiators little bargaining power. Thus, under duress they composed “a rather perfunctory document” that heavily favored

Shapur’s interests.160 As a result, Persia acquired suzerainty over five Armenian provinces, while gaining control of Nisibis, Singara, and Castra Mauorum along with fifteen Roman forts in

Armenia. Nisibis was lost, but the negotiators were able to stipulate that these forts and cities would be transferred to Persia without their populations. Thus, the Nisibenes were saved from being repopulated into Persia.

Historians look to the disastrous campaign of Julian and the resulting treaty as the proximate cause of the transfer of Nisibis to Persian control. The previous treaty between

Diocletian and Narseh had proved unsustainable because it heavily favored Rome’s interests.

Admittedly, the peace treaty held during Constantine’s reign. But the peace was in large part due to the youth and inexperience of the child king Shapur. Just before Constantine’s death, Shapur was ready to challenge the terms of the peace treaty of 299. In the middle decades of the fourth century, the forces of Constantius and Shapur had numerous minor skirmishes along with several pitched battles and sieges in Mesopotamia. Shortly after the death of Constantius, Julian attempted a blitzkrieg campaign into the heart of Persia that resulted in his death and a new treaty that reversed the Roman advantages of the previous treaty.

158 Amm. XXV:5. 159 Amm. XXV:7. 160 Blockley, “The Romano-Persian Peace Treaties,” 34. See Blockley’s study, 34-36, for details on the terms of the treaty.

According to Ammianus, when rumors of the terms of the treaty reached Nisibis the inhabitants were struck with bitter grief.161 And they could not understand why their city was given up without a fight. For they had steadfastly protected the entire east against the incursions of Shapur. And later in the summer, the Roman army arrived by forced march at Nisibis with

Julian’s body, the Persian standard was raised on a citadel, and the citizens were told to evacuate the city.162 The population “begged with outstretched arms and tears in their eyes that they should not be compelled to go.”163 Ammianus depicts the forced departure of tear-filled citizens hastily grabbing easily transportable property.164

Even before these rumors reached Nisibis, Ephrem already blamed Julian for the revival of paganism in Nisibis.165 Perhaps, the seeds of his Teaching Songs Contra Julian were already planted deep in his mind along with this blame. And as Ammianus suggests, these new rumors certainly struck Ephrem the Nisibene ‘with bitter grief.’ And this bitter news watered the seedlings of blame. So when the Persian banner was raised in Nisibis, Ephrem stood over

Julian’s body.166 And later in Edessa, Ephrem would train his choir (of Nisibene refugees?) to rehearse the measured words he remembered decrying over the corpse:

This is his majesty; and this is his splendor. This is his royalty; and this, his chariot. This is his muddy lump come to an end.167

161 Amm XXV:8. 162 CJ 3:1-3. Amm. XXV:9. 163 Amm. XXV:9. Translation from Hamilton, Ammianus, 307-8. 164 Amm. XXV:9. 165 See the discussion on the singular hymn, which Beck titled De Ecclessia in Sidney H. Griffith, “Ephraem the Syrian’s Hymns ‘Against Julian’: Meditations on History and Imperial Power,” Vigiliae Christianae 41.3 (1987): 241. 166 CJ 3:4. 167 CJ 3:5b.

From Ephrem’s perspective, the church is to be shepherded by her bishops and protected by her emperors.168 So Julian’s reign was a brief—but problematic—interruption in the history of the triumph of Christianity over its rivals. For Julian did not protect the church, but instead he led her astray. However, since Julian set himself as the representative of paganism, the end of “his muddy lump” represented its total defeat.169 As Ephrem stood over the royal corpse, the end of

Julian and his apostasy seemed so obvious that Ephrem wondered how he did not foresee it.170

Ephrem was clearly heart-broken over the loss of his beloved city, but he took comfort in being allowed to remain in Roman territory. God’s wrath had come to Nisibis (as it had come to

Nicomedia), but with it He mingled his love:

The Just One, whose wrath waxed, tempered wrath with His love. Not casting us captive, He settled us in our land.171

Thus, Ephrem became one of many Nisibene refugees on route to Edessa.

The End of the Chapter of Ephrem’s Life

Eventually, Ephrem arrived in Edessa where he spent his final decade. There he continued to serve the church as a teacher under bishop Barsai.172 And there he found himself in

168 Griffith passim. On Ephrem’s ‘Eusebian’ view of church-state relations as it applies to CJ, see Griffith, “Ephraem the Syrian’s Hymns ‘Against Julian,’” 251-6. 169 Ibid., 256-8. It should be noted that Ephrem also saw the defeat of Judaism in Julian’s demise, see ibid., 250-1, 258-260. 170 CJ 3:5b. 171 CJ 2:26b. Without altering sense, a slight syntactical alteration was made to the third line to fit the meter. Some authors take this passage as evidence that Ammianus’ account of an immediate departure is misleading. See Mathews and Amar, St. Ephrem the Syrian, 33. They read the final line of this stanza as proof that the population was allowed to stay in Nisibis for a time. The present author has difficulty understanding this interpretation, since the penultimate line speaks of captivity (not just exile) and the final line indicates that the population remained within a region (i.e. our land, atrān) not the walled-city (karkā) of Nisibis. While this interpretation is not impossible, it seems unlikely in the extreme. For even a casual perusal of the primary sources on the Romano- Persian conflict will yield numerous examples of forced captivity. 172 Halleux, “Saint Éphrem,” 331-2.

33 a highly syncretistic society that brought new urgency for his theological expression.173 And there he trained choirs to sing his songs in praise of Abraham Qidunaya and Julian Saba—those innovators of a new style of ascetic spirituality, which combined native Syriac institutions with

Egyptian imports.174 And there he died, as tradition reports, on June 9, 373.175

Ephrem’s fame as a teacher and holy man spread quickly after his death.176 And as his fame spread, so too nonfactual legends and misattributed texts began to circulate in association with his name.177 The burgeoning Graeco-Syrian monastic communities of the fifth and sixth centuries in the environs of Edessa effaced the portrait of Ephrem Syrus and wrote over it a new icon of the ideal ascetic, Ephrem Byzantinus.178 This has created an immense problem for modern scholars, who are still sorting out which Syriac texts attributed to Ephrem have a reasonable claim to authenticity.179

In addition to the Syriac corpus, nearly ninety works attributed to Ephrem survive in

Greek.180 However, many of these texts have features that argue against their authenticity.181

173 Mathews and Amar, St. Ephrem the Syrian, 33-35. Griffith, “Setting Right,” 111-4. 174 Twenty-four songs in praise of Julian Saba are attributed to Ephrem. At least some of these songs are likely to be authentic works of Ephrem, see Sidney H. Griffith, “Julian Saba, ‘Father of the Monks’ of Syria,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 2.2 (1994), 198-203. Likewise, at least some of the fourteen songs on Abraham Qidunaya are authentic works of Ephrem, see Hayes, “In Praise of Abraham Qīdunāyā,” 20-21. 175 Halleux, “Saint Éphrem,” 332-3. 176 Griffith, “Images of St. Ephraem,” 7-8. 177 Mathews and Amar, St. Ephrem the Syrian, 12-25. 178 Griffith, “Images of St. Ephraem,” 7-17. 179 In general, the discussion of authenticity is spread through numerous articles and book introductions, which discuss individual texts or small groups of texts. The classic work of Joseph Melki collected and summarized the state of authenticity research up to the early 1980’s. See Joseph Melki, “Saint Éphrem le Syrien, un bilan de l’édition critique” Parole de l’Orient 11 (1983), 3-88. However, this indispensable synopsis is now over three decades old. And a new synopsis is definitely a scholarly desideratum. Recently, Blake Hartung has raised anew the question of authenticity of Ephrem’s madrāšē and has proposed a “new” methodology. See Blake Hartung, “The Authorship and Dating of the Syriac Corpus Attributed to Ephrem of Nisibis: A Reassessment,” Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 22.2 (2018): 296-321. Unfortunately, Hartung harps on antiquated (e.g. Ortiz de Urbina and Martikainen) and periphery (e.g. Rodrigues Pereira) scholarship (306-7). And his abstract says without subsequent citation, “Scholars have tended to treat the hymn cycles as units,” but this is contradicted by nearly every article written on Ephrem in the past three decades. Consequently, Hartung’s “new” proposal to assess the madrāšē within smaller units turns out to be just a slight modification of the longstanding common practice of mainstream Ephrem scholarship. 180 Kees den Biesen, Annotated Bibliography of Ephrem the Syrian, student ed. (Self published, 2011), §190-278.

Yet, several Greek works are known to have a textual basis in Syriac, but only three of these are reckoned authentic works of Ephrem.182 Notably, two Greek texts—known by their Latin titles

Sermo Asceticus and De Morbo Linguae et Pravis Affectibus—have their basis in the Syriac

Homilies of Reproof.183 In fact, it was knowledge of this reception history that originally spawned the current dissertation. But it seemed prudent to offer a formal study and translation of the Syriac texts of the Homilies of Reproof first. For these beautifully dynamic texts, which have been adapted and abridged throughout their reception history, deserve their own study. Thus, this present study intends to pave the foundation upon which a further study can be built.

Nevertheless, some initial observations on the reception history will be hazarded in part II.

****

The primary purpose of the foregoing narrative has been to provide background information as a context for Ephrem, the Nisibene homilist. However, a couple of key themes were embedded within the structure of the narrative itself. And now at the chapter’s conclusion, it will be beneficial to explicitly state these latent themes:

This chapter intentionally highlights the insecurities associated with Ephrem’s life on the border. At times, the Ephremic corpus addresses these problems explicitly; other times, the chaos of border life is part of the unspoken assumptions. The present author has emplotted

Ephrem as a pastor-poet within a narrative of Romano-Persian conflict in order to provide context for the urgency with which the Homilies of Reproof address their audience. At least some of these homilies hail from Ephrem’s late Nisibene period, where the Persian threat had

181 See the substantial note in Sidney H. Griffith, Faith Adoring the Mystery: Reading the Bible with St. Ephraem the Syrian. The Père Marquette Lecture in Theology, 1997 (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1997), n.6. 182 Wonmo Suh, “From the Syriac Ephrem to the Greek Ephrem: A Case Study of the Influence of Ephrem’s Isosyllabic Sermons (Memre) on Greek-Speaking Christianity” (Ph.D. diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 2000), 12 n.42. 183 Den Biesen, Bibliography of Ephrem, §110-111.

35 become a pressing pastoral concern. The commentaries on these homilies in the second part of this dissertation will first argue for dating these texts to this period and then will assume this borderland context.

This chapter has also dramatized the ebb and flow of information across the empires of

Late Antiquity. And it has recounted some of the ways Ephrem shaped this variegated information (sometimes extemporaneously, sometimes through recollection) for his own rhetorical purposes. Occasionally Ephrem composed songs commemorating the shared past of his community (e.g. the songs on the three Nisibene bishops). Yet, more often, Ephrem weaves the weft of currently unfolding events through the warp of biblical narrative (e.g. the songs of advice to the bishop Abraham). And frequently, Ephrem begins to speak of events that happened far away before information of those events had settled into coherent accounts (e.g. the Homilies on Nicomedia). And sometimes it is difficult to determine whether Ephrem was speaking of events in process or past events dramatized (e.g. the first Teaching Song on Nisibis).

Historians rightly look to Ephrem as an eye-witness of the Romano-Persian conflict; and

Patristic scholars rightly look to him as an important voice in the post-Nicaean period. But one cannot simply shuck the poetics from the Ephremic corpus to find the kernel of historical or theological data. This dissertation offers a formal study of Ephrem’s homiletic poetics. The following chapter focuses on Ephrem the choirmaster and song writer. Chapter Three studies the homiletic rhythms of Ephrem, while honing in on his Verse Homilies of Reproof. The second part of the dissertation will provide thematic commentaries for the texts translated in the appendixes. Yet, never far from this literary study is an awareness of the value of Ephrem as a primary source for historians and Patristic scholars. In addition to the scholarly community, the present study seeks to inspire the Anglophone homilists of the Syriac churches in diaspora.

Chapter 2 The Harp of the Spirit: The Teaching Songs of St. Ephrem

This man introduced women to doctrinal disputes; with (their) soft tones he was victorious in battle against all heresies. This man’s mouth was a bow, and his words were arrows; he forged songs like spearheads for the weapon which he fashioned.1

This chapter first considers Ephrem as a songwriter and choirmaster. Then the focus shifts from the figure of Ephrem to the lyrics of his songs as they have been textually transmitted.2 Thus, there is a shift from historical inquiry to literary inquiry.3

The purpose of this chapter is severalfold. Almost all scholarly interaction with

Ephrem’s poetics explicate texts from the corpus of madrāšē.4 Thus, this is the natural place to interact with previous scholarship. And, as will be seen, the songs are tightly constructed.5

Thus, a study of the prominent formal features of Ephrem’s poetics can be readily contextualized with several terse passages. Furthermore, while Ephrem’s madrāšē and mēmrē are distinct

1 Joseph P. Amar, A Metrical Homily on Holy Mar Ephrem by Mar Jacob of Serug: Critical Edition of the Syriac Text, Translation and Introduction, PO 47:1 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1975), lines 152-4. Likely, what Amar translates as “(their) soft tones” should be “the soft (women)” or “those who are feminine/effeminate.” In other words, it is not the tones which are soft, but paradoxically Ephrem’s weapons were soft (women). 2 This chapter uses the word “lyric” to bring to focus that part of the song, which has been textually transmitted and received by modern scholarship. The word “song” focuses on the madrāšā as it was performed in its original context. However, the distinction is not rigidly maintained. The primary purpose is to remind the reader that music is not part of this study. The present author has no background in musicology and thus intentionally avoids discussing the relationship between historical Ephrem and the modern Syriac liturgical traditions. He would however welcome dialogue on the subject. The details of the transmission and reception are important, but outside the scope of the present study. On the reception history, see Sebastian P. Brock, “The Transmission of Ephrem’s Madrashe in the Syriac Liturgical Tradition,” Studia Patristica 33 (1997): 490-505. 3 And along the frontier region, hybrid-methodologies are exchanged. And the transition is signaled by a change in voice. 4 Perhaps, the most notable exception is den Biesen, Simple and Bold. Den Biesen looks at Ephrem’s poetics across his various genres. 5 It seems extraordinarily ironic that F.C. Burkitt, who was educated during that verbose Victorian period, would call Ephrem’s dense poetry, “extraordinarily prolix.” For his own extraordinarily prolix polemic against the poetics of Ephrem, see F. Crawford Burkitt, Early Eastern Christianity; St. Margaret’s Lectures on the Syriac-Speaking Church (London: John Murray, 1904), 95-99. As is often the case, when an academic criticizes a great poet’s verse, his readers learn more about the critic’s lack of imagination and artistic vision than about the poet under scrutiny.

36 37 literary genres, they employ many similar literary devices, which seem to come from the same mind. Chapter Three will compare Ephrem the homilist with Ephrem the choirmaster. And this chapter lays the foundation for that comparison. Finally, the present author discerns only genre differences between the poetics of the authentic6 madrāšē and the first three Verse Homilies of

Reproof.7 Consequently, the argument for the authenticity of these three memrē in Chapter Four relies heavily on comparative poetics.

The Performative Context

The previous chapter briefly intimates that the madrāšē of St. Ephrem were publicly performed liturgical songs. This passing assertion now requires further elucidation. For, in a recent article, Jeffrey Wickes has problematized the Sitz im Leben of the Ephremic lyrical corpus.8 He explains that some lyrics have clear liturgical cues (i.e. On Unleavened Bread and

Nativity), while other lyrics do not suggest an obvious liturgical context (i.e. On Faith).9

Moreover, the latter are often more complex with regard to both form and content. Wickes argues that these songs occupied “a blurred performative space between liturgy and study circle.”10 And after problematizing the categories of performative context (liturgy, school, ascetic community), he suggests that Ephrem likely wrote some of these highly sophisticated pedological songs for a close-knit, ascetic, literary-minded, study group.11

6 For the nonce, let the word “authentic” stand for “those texts which scholars generally accept as authentic.” The present author acknowledges that in the case of the Ephremic corpus every possible argument for authenticity is circular. The best that can be argued from internal evidence is that certain passages share certain features with other passages that appear to come from the same mind. And there are certain features that one expects (or does not expect) to find in his writings. These expectations have been built inductively over the latter half of the twentieth century through the work of many scholars familiar with the Ephremic corpus. And while the general shape of those expectations has obtained a fair degree of scholarly consensus, the minutiae are still being debated. 7 As will be discussed in Chapter Four, the fourth Homily studied in this dissertation is of questionable authenticity. 8 Jeffrey Wickes, “Between Liturgy and School: Reassessing the Performative Context of Ephrem’s Madrāšē,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 26:1 (2018): 25-51. 9 Ibid, 36-43. 10 Ibid, 28-29. 11 Ibid, 49-51.

Nevertheless, the present author wishes (temporarily, for the sake of argument,) to imagine that the entire corpus finds its Sitz im Leben within the liturgy. For to date, some scholars have found the category “liturgy” to be interpretively helpful (and historically tenable).12 Yet when one assumes a liturgical context for the entire corpus, the avid reader will quickly realize that Ephrem’s liturgy allowed for a wide variety of topics—sometimes played simply and other times sung with philosophically sophisticated language with irregular time signatures. And the present author cannot see any reason why the inchoate, evolving public liturgy of fourth century Mesopotamia could not allow for the performance of both simple and sophisticated songs, even if those topics would at times seem out of place to the rigid categories of modern churchmen.

Perhaps, the chief value in Wickes’ article is that it encourages the scholarly gaze to expand its purview of the performative context of this diverse corpus. For, what cannot be doubted is that the lyrical corpus is quite diverse.13 So now, in light of Wickes’ research, interpreters of Ephremic texts would be advised to consider study circles as an alternate performative context so that the scholarly community can further test the interpretive value of his hypothesis. However, what should not be inferred from Wickes’ hypothesis is that Ephrem’s intellectually sophisticated songs could not have found a welcome home in public church life.14

Certainly, the historical Ephrem composed songs in service to the church under the leadership of his bishops.15 And certainly, some (if not all) of these songs were intended for

12 In particular, see Susan Ashbrook Harvey, “Revisiting the Daughters of the Covenant: Women’s Choirs and Sacred Song in Ancient Syriac Christianity,” Hugoye 8, no. 2 (2005): 125-149, http://www.bethmardutho.org/index.php/hugoye/volume-index/166.html. See also, Griffith, “Clash of Madrashē,” 452-458. 13 In fact, the corpus is so diverse that considerable work remains before there can be a scholarly consensus concerning authenticity. For no simple criteria of authenticity will suffice. 14 As Harvey has said, “Christianity has always placed enormous weight on the instructional role of the liturgy—on the liturgy as the primary teaching context of the church” (italics added). Harvey, “Revisiting the Daughters,” 136. 15 See previous chapter.

39 public worship. And he seems to have had a lasting concern with making quality music.16

Similarly, he spent considerable energy rehearsing choirs in the correct performance of his songs.17 And women seem to have played a prominent role in those choirs.18 Sometimes the choir would have been accompanied by instrumentation.19 And in Nisibis, Ephrem’s melodies would have resounded through the five aisles of the cathedral and through the tripartite halls of the baptistry. And some songs might have been sung and discussed in close-knit groups throughout the city in homes, shops, or market squares. And through all of this, Ephrem’s reputation as a musically inclined teacher of doctrine was set to spread so that after his death this historical fact was secured in the mind of his biographers.20

The Harpist of God’s House

A little over a century after Ephrem’s death, Jacob of Serugh (449-521) composed a homily, which he chanted (√zmr) in commemoration of St. Ephrem, the “harpist (qītārōdā) of

God’s house.”21 Therein, he likens Ephrem to Moses.22 As Moses gave tambourines to the

Hebrew daughters to make a joyful sound of praise upon their deliverance from Egypt, so

Ephrem became a second Moses when he taught the gentile daughters to sing praise to Christ who delivered the dead from Sheol. Ephrem taught women to sing his songs—as birds learning to warble, coo, and chirp new songs.23 But he also taught them through his songs, so that they too might teach correct doctrine.24

16 Griffith, “Clash of Madrashē,” 463-472. 17 Ibid, 456. 18 See following section. 19 Ibid, 455. 20 See, Griffith, “Images of Ephraem,” 7-8. 21 Amar, On Holy Mar Ephrem by Mar Jacob of Serug. On Jacob’s cadenced delivery, see line 1. On the designation “harpist,” see line 33. On Jacob’s presentation of women choirs, see Harvey, “Revisiting the Daughters,” 138-141. 22 Lines 45-97. 23 Lines 99-102. 24 Lines 42, 114, 152.

Jacob imaginatively engages his audience by placing direct speech into Ephrem’s mouth.

Thus, Jacob’s Ephrem explains that Eve’s iniquity had muzzled and silenced women.25 But

Eve’s sister Mary subsequently restored their voice, so now women ought to boldly sing praise to

“the One who granted [them] freedom of speech (parrhēsia) by his birth.”26 And he intones that both male and female partake of one and the same sacrament—the single body and blood of the

Lord.27 Thus, both are heirs of a single salvation. Consequently, praise should be on the lips of both equally, for both look forward to the same new world where both are equal.28

Jacob’s portrayal of the verbal icon of Ephrem the teacher of women through the medium of song is generally accepted as historically reliable by modern scholars.29 At least, the color palette and strokes form an image that is consistent with the surviving lyrical corpus attributed to

Ephrem, which portray a sustained pastoral concern for women.30 And between Ephrem’s day and Jacob’s, Rabbula bishop of Edessa (411-435) wrote canons for the Covenanters, one of which confirmed that the daughters of the covenant were to learn madrāšē.31 And as the following chapters (and translations) will show, Ephrem’s care for women permeate his homilies as well.

25 Lines 108-110. 26 Lines 108-113. Amar’s translation. 27 Lines 106-107. 28 Line 43. 29 For examples ready at hand, see the recently cited sources from Amar, Griffith, and Harvey. 30 The present author is particularly moved by the tender presentation of the sorrows of women in this life and their future total paradisaical alleviation in his Seventh Song On Paradise. See also Susan Ashbrook Harvey, Song and Memory: Biblical Women in Syriac Tradition, The Père Marquette Lecture in Theology, 2010, (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2010), 45-60. And see Phil J. Botha, “Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Mary—The Bold Women in Ephrem the Syrian’s Hymn De Nativitate 9,” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 17 (2006): 1-21. Joseph Amar contrasts the negative attitudes towards women found in the Ephremic hagiographical tradition with Ephrem’s wholly positive view, “The genuine works of Ephrem are remarkable for the warmth and admiration they express toward women, a feature of his writing that is all the more exceptional given the general disparagement of women by later monastic culture.” Joseph P. Amar, “Christianity at the Crossroads: The Legacy of Ephrem the Syrian.” Religion and Literature 43:2 (2011), 4. 31 See canon 20 in Arthur Vööbus, Syriac and Arabic Documents Regarding Legislation Relative to Syrian Asceticism: Edited, Translated and Furnished with Literary Historical Data, PETSE (Stockholm: ETSE, 1960), 41. See Harvey, “Revisiting the Daughters,” 129-130. Presumably, canon 20 intends that the daughters of the covenant were to learn the madrāšē so as to sing them within a choir. However, the canon only indicates that they were “to learn” them.

Teaching-Song Poetics

This section highlights several of the most salient formal poetic features found in the madrāšē of St. Ephrem. And the next section contextualizes these features with an explication of several stanzas. Since this dissertation is not properly a study of this genre, it would be improper to offer an exhaustive treatment of the subject. Consequently, many helpful and groundbreaking studies will be ignored or merely referenced in the notes.32

Ephrem’s madrāšē were stanzaic songs, often accompanied by a refrain (ʿōnītā). But the only aspect of the music that survives in the manuscript tradition is the name of each song’s meter-melody (qālā).33 The meter itself is syllabic in a variety of patterns without any heightened regularity of syllable stress or lengthening.34 However, stress and note duration could have readily been expressed in musical performance. Some lyrics follow a simple metric pattern, while others deploy rather complex patterns (and a few seem to be non-metric free verse).35 And since the music was not textually transmitted, there is no way to determine whether the complexity of a syllabic meter was mirrored by a similar musical complexity. Nor is

32 Two relatively recent studies have done an admiral job surveying the numerous strains of Ephremic studies while offering critical insight. See, den Biesen, Simple and Bold. And Hayes, “In Praise of Abraham Qīdunāyā.” Den Biesen’s book is a must-read, but unfortunately the sustained, vitriolic polemic against several underserving scholars can be exhausting at times. Hayes, on the other hand, offers insightful criticisms and engagement without the distracting polemics. 33 See A.S. Rodrigues Pereira, Studies in Aramaic Poetry: Selected Jewish, Christian and Samaritan Poems (Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1997), 111. For a broader discussion, see Kathleen McVey, “Were the Earliest Madrāšê Songs or Recitations?” In After Bardaisan: Studies on Continuity and Change in Syriac Christianity in Honour of Professor Han J.W. Drijvers, ed. G.J.Reinink and A.C. Klugkist (Louvain: Orientalia Lovaniensa Analecta, 1999), 185-199. Blake Hartung has made available a handy work-in-progress guide to the meter-melodies of the Ephremic corpus (https://asu.academia.edu/BlakeHartung). 34 All natural languages have some degree of regularity and periodicity that might suggest a rhythmic response. However, the rhythms inherent in the syllable stress of Ephrem’s lyrics do not seem to be heighted beyond the natural rhythms of Syriac. On the relationship between a natural language its poetic conventions, see Derek Attridge, Poetic Rhythm: An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995), 3-4. See also idem, Moving Words: Forms of English Poetry (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2013), 57-76, 123. 35 For example, Nat 1 has a simple metric pattern with stanzas of 7+7 / 7+7 syllables. Likewise, Virg 44 has the stanzaic pattern 4+4 / 4+4. And several of the songs On the Holy Fast have the complex meter 6+5+5 / 5+5+6 / 4+4 /5+5 / 5+7 / 6+6+4. Furthermore, the complex meters seem to have allowed for a higher degree of variance between stanzas. And CH 17-21 seem to be (controlled) free verse.

42 there a way to determine whether the phrasal rhythms were reinforced by the musical rhythms or whether the music and lyrics competed in counterpoint to build rhythmic tension and release.36

****

The modern reader approaching a translation of Ephrem for the first time will be struck by the poet’s propensity for imagistic language.37 Of course, imagery is a central feature of many poems. But, Ephrem presents his readers with a dizzying array of images drawn from scripture and the natural world: Christ is a harbor as well as an illimitable sea, but He is also the sea’s pearl.38 Yet the pearl is also a symbol of the faith, as well as of Mary and Eve.39 So also, the pierced pearl suspended from a necklace is a type of Christ’s crucifixion, as is the outstretched wings of a bird.40 And as a bird is taught to speak by facing its own likeness, so God teaches humanity about Himself through human oriented language. And in scripture, God clothed himself in a garment of words.41 And He constantly changes His clothes to show that

His Essence (ītūteh) is not to be equated with words.42

The inexperienced reader might be inclined to interpret all these images as mere artistic embellishments. And the busy reader might even grow impatient, while trying to peel back the layers of metaphor to discover the “real” historical or theological meaning. However, the

36 For what it is worth, my intuition is that the music would have reinforced the lyrical movements in rhythm and complexity, rather than compete against them. 37 Since this section cannot hope to treat this complex topic with the nuance it deserves, the reader is directed to the vast literature on the topic. For the most comprehensive treatment to date, see Tanios Bou Mansour, La pensée symbolique de saint Éphrem (Kaslik/Liban: Bibliothèque de l’Université Saint-Esprit, 1988). See also, Brock, Luminous Eye. Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom. Idem, “The Theory of Symbolism in St. Ephrem’s Theology,” Parole de l'Orient 6/7 (1975): 1-20. Edmund Beck, “Zur Terminologie von Ephräm’s Bildtheologie,” in Typus, Symbol, Allegorie, bei den östlichen Vätern und ihren Parallelen im Mittelalter, ed. M. Schmidt and C.F. Geyer (Regensburg: Pustet, 1982), 329-377. And den Biesen, Simple and Bold. 38 On harbor, see HdF 12:16. On sea, see HdF 43:1. On pearl, see HdF 82, passim. 39 On faith, see CH 41:2. On Mary, see HdF 81:3. On Eve, see HdF 83:2. 40 On the pierced pearl, see HdF 82:2. On bird, see HdF 18:6. 41 On garment imagery, see HdF 31, passim. See Brock, Luminous Eye, 60-66. See also, Phil J. Botha, “‘God in a Garment of Words’: The Metaphor of Metaphoric Language in Ephrem the Syrian’s Hymn ‘On Faith’ XXXI,” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 3 (1992): 63-79. 42 HdF 31:3.

43 metaphoric and symbolic language is not a superficial veneer obscuring Ephrem’s “real” thought. Rather, Ephrem taught his choirs and their auditors that symbolic language reflects the underlying structure of reality. For the Creator filled creation with His icons and He set pointers

(or symbols) in the very order of creation.43 Likewise, He endowed humanity with interior faculties capable of discerning the significance of these nature-bound signifiers.44 So that wherever one looks with the eye of faith, one is apt to find these symbols.45 Similarly, the scriptures are able teach humanity the correct way to address God, because scripture and language itself were designed to accomplish God’s self-revelation. For the Creator created speech so that He might speak with humanity through scripture. And nature and scripture both point to the person and work of Christ as both work together to “carry symbols of His humanity and of His Divinity.”46

****

Amid a myriad of mystic symbols, Ephrem frequently expresses his theological vision through antithesis deployed in tightly packed parallel structures.47 But antithesis is not mere opposition; it is an opposition in relation to a common idea. For an antithetical pair has both a point of contact and a point of departure.48 And Ephrem frequently uses antithesis as an emphatic figure of speech to stress difference, while minimizing similarity between terms.49

43 Virg 20:12. Griffith, Faith Adoring the Mystery, 24-32. 44 Brock, Luminous Eye, 71-81. 45 The rest of this paragraph follows the lead of Griffith and Brock. See previous two notes. 46 Azym 4:22-24, cited from Griffith, Faith Adoring the Mystery, 27. 47 Here, the term “parallel” includes chiasmus (ABC:CBA) as a subset of parallelism. Yet, some authors have made a point to logically connect Ephrem’s penchant for chiasmus with his predilection for antithesis. While there is some reason to accept this assertion, one wonders whether musical concerns led to chiasmus. Perhaps, lyrical chiasmus was written to reflect retrograde inversion (i.e. a musical chiasmus). 48 Phil Botha offers a definition with linguistic precision: an antithetical pair “fall(s) under the same archilexeme, having some common semes but being mutually exclusive with regard to some other seme.” Phil J. Botha, “Antithesis and Argument in the Hymns of Ephrem the Syrian,” HTS Theological Studies 44.3 (1988): 581-595. 49 Ibid, 583.

And when antithesis approaches contradiction, a paradox is formed.50 And the Ephremic corpus teems with paradox.51 For at the heart of Ephrem’s theological vision are the paradoxes entailed by the mystery of the incarnation and crucifixion.52

Phil Botha likens the two terms of an antithesis to the two opposing poles of a horseshoe magnet, where the tension between the poles are brought close together.53 Thus, Botha

(somewhat idiosyncratically) calls the antithetic pair a “polarity.”54 But I want to push the magnet analogy a little further: when one bends a bar magnet into a horseshoe shape, the two halves run parallel for a time forcing the magnetic field into a greater concentration in a smaller area. So also, Ephrem’s polarities are concentrated via compact parallel structures, creating a force both powerful and moving.55

During the last three decades, Botha wrote a series of articles on the ubiquitous use of polar structures in Ephrem’s madrāšē. Each of these articles translates and studies a single text to show that polarities are carefully deployed to serve the songwriter’s rhetorical purposes.56

When taken individually, each article contributes a few interesting data points to Ephrem scholarship. But when his corpus is read as a unit, Botha offers a strong inductive argument that leads the reader to expect the madrāšē to convey their central themes and arguments through intricate polar structures.

50 Phil J. Botha, “The Structure and Function of Paradox in the Hymns of Ephrem the Syrian,” Ekklesiastikos Pharos 68 (1990-91): 50. 51 Ibid, passim. 52 Ibid, 51, 55-56. 53 Botha, “Antithesis and Argument,” 582. 54 Other authors have taken his lead. See den Biesen, Simple and Bold. See also Hayes, “In Praise of Abraham Qidunaya.” The word ‘polarity’ has some imaginative force that can be preferable in some contexts to ‘antithetical pair,’ but overuse can dull that keen edge. Furthermore, the term ‘polarity’ is more obscure that ‘antithetical pair” in a comparative literature context. I use the term here to highlight Botha’s influence. 55 Unfortunately, verbose translations abound, which attenuate the raw power of Ephrem’s terse Syriac verse. 56 Several early articles are exceptions in that they survey a theme across multiple texts.

Ephrem’s polarities present many forms of opposition: sometimes the antithesis is simple negation (sweet::not sweet).57 Other times, it is based on semantic antonyms (truth::error,

Lord::servant, profit::loss).58 Still other times, Ephrem places a singular word at one pole and its plural at the opposite pole (the people::the peoples, the way:: ways).59 And frequently, the opposition is one of perceived comparative value of connotations. Notice that the foregoing example pairs carry an opposition of perceived value (i.e. the first term carries positive semiotic value, while the latter term carries negative value).60 And this difference of value is also found in non-antonymic pairs (majesty::muddy lump, to reign::on calvary).61 Furthermore, an awareness of this genre builds an expectation for regular (even rhythmic) semiotic valuation.62

Thus, there are times when this rhythmic anticipation encourages assigning value to passive and active constructions expressed both syntactically (to catch::to be caught) as well as semantically

(to speak::to hear).63 Now, these are merely illustrative examples, not an exhaustive list. But the point is that antithesis occurs frequently, so the reader need not look far for further examples.

And scholars (without reference to Botha) were aware of the universal use of antithesis and paradox in the Ephremic madrāšē.64 But Botha was the first to show that Ephrem tended to express his central theme and argument through an intricate framework of polarities.65

57 Reproof 1:4 (translated in appendix). 58 CH 41:2, Nat 11:6 (both translated below); Fast 4:2 (translated in Chapter 1). 59 Azym 2:13, CH 25:8. 60 Perhaps, it would be more precise to say that frequently a term receives its semiotic value (+/-) from its context. 61 CJ 3:5 (translated in Chapter 1), CH 25:2. 62 On the relationship between anticipation and convention, see Barbara Herrnstein Smith, Poetic Closure: A Study of How Poems End (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968), 50-56. 63 Nat 9:7; HdF 82:1 (translated below). 64 See Brock, Luminous Eye, 23ff. The revised edition of The Luminous Eye cites Botha in its Bibliography. Yet the footnotes of Botha’s early articles clearly show his dependence on Brock’s study. See also, R. Pereira, Studies in Aramaic Poetry, 110-179, 237-265. R. Pereira’s study was written independently of Botha’s influence, even though it was published after Botha began to write on Ephrem. Where Botha would say X and Y form a polarity or the polarity X-Y, R. Pereira says X is set opposite Y or simply X is opposite Y. 65 As far as I can tell, Botha first alluded to this in “Antithesis and Argument.” But he developed his argument significantly before writing a follow up article: Phil J. Botha, “Polarity: The Theology of Anti-Judaism in Ephrem

Typically, this polar edifice is hierarchical. That is to say, localized polarities are deployed in service to a thematic polarity that stretches across multiple stanzas or an entire song.66

Occasionally, this thematic polarity is only implicit. But usually, it is explicitly expressed (often repeatedly). In general, Ephrem rather effectively deploys a variety of hierarchical polarities to achieve a variety of rhetorical goals.

Typically, a structured polar series places together all the negative terms—weighs them together and rejects them together—while offering a single alternative that ought to be accepted.

Thus, polar argumentation removes the middle ground and urges a choice between two stark alternatives—one clearly right and one clearly wrong.67 Furthermore, the associated terms often acquire a newfound similarity as members of the same pole. Thus, all false teachings—whether from human or demonic sources—are on the same side (the left side, in Ephrem’s Biblical parlance).68 The (plural) teachings are many, but they are condemned as one. And on the right side, the (singular) teaching of the apostles must be accepted by a singular church, free from divisive schisms.69 Similarly, righteous acts bloom side-by-side and adorn righteous people.70

Righteous acts are brought together and praised together, as all other adornments are set opposite and condemned.71 In both cases (whether in doctrinal dispute or spiritual guidance), Ephrem’s polar argumentation taps into the cultural paradigm of honor and shame to link the negative pole

the Syrian’s Hymns on Easter,” HTS Theological Studies 46.1-2 (1990): 36-45. See Botha (passim) in bibliography for further evidence. 66 See Botha, “God in a Garment of Words,” 72-73. See also idem, “Contrast and Contrivance in Ephrem the Syrian’s Hymn De Virginitate XLIV,” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 12 (2001): 35. And idem, “The Paradox between Appearance and Truth in Ephrem the Syrian’s Hymn De Crucifixione IV,” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 13 (2002): 39. 67 See, Phil J. Botha, “The Textual Strategy of Ephrem the Syrian’s Hymn Contra Haereses I,” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 15 (2004): 65-66. See also, idem, “An Analysis of Ephrem the Syrian’s views on the Temptation of Christ as Exemplified in His Hymn De Virginitate XII,” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 14 (2003): 45. 68 Botha, “Textual Strategy of Ephrem,” 57ff passim. 69 This is a common theme among the Madrāšē on the Faith. For quick references, see Jeffery T. Wickes, St. Ephrem the Syrian: The Hymns on Faith (D.C.: CUA Press, 2015), 50 n195 and index (Church: division). 70 See Qid 5:22. See also discussion of Ephrem and his Nisibene Bishops in Chapter 1. 71 See Qid 5:25.

47 with shame and the positive pole with honor.72 Thus, effectively moving the audience toward

Ephrem’s rhetorical goal.

****

This sub-section introduces the novel literary term “clustering” and shows the usefulness of the term as an interpretive category with regard to Ephrem’s poetry. Clustering is a generic category encompassing several prosodic devices, which rely on repetition of similar elements in close proximity.73 Whereas Ephrem’s poetics of antithesis and symbolism are readily recognizable in modern translation as well as thoroughly studied in modern scholarship, to date translators have almost universally obscured Ephrem’s prosodic clustering.

Of course, the translator of poetry cannot hope to convey every prosodic feature of the original into the target language. For, “there is no translation without some loss of the original….”74 Yet, at the very least, the translator should learn to feel the prosodic movements while reading Ephrem’s lyrics. For, the translator “needs to become the reader par excellence— or perhaps I should say par exigence.”75 To this end, the American-Israeli playwright-translator- poet T. Carmi (while appropriating the poem of Robert Graves) offers sound translation advice:

“Subdue your pen to his / until it proves as natural / to write his name as yours.”76

72 On doctrinal dispute, see Botha, “Poetic Face of Rhetoric,” 28. See also, idem “The Textual Strategy of Ephrem the Syrian’s Hymn Contra Haereses I,” 62-3. And “Ephrem the Syrian’s Hymn On the Crucifixion 4.” HTS Theological Studies 71.3, 4-5. On spiritual guidance, see idem, “Textual Strategy in a Fourth-Century Syriac Hymn on the Life of the Ascetic Abraham of Kidun,” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 8 (1997): 47-50. See also idem, “Contrast and Contrivance,” 36-38. On honor and shame bestowed in the next life, see idem, “Honour and Shame as Pivotal Values in Ephrem the Syrian’s Vision of Paradise,” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 10 (1999): 49-65. 73 R. Pereira uses the verb “accumulate” with much the same sense as my “clustering. See R. Pereira, Studies in Aramaic Poetry, 148. 74 János Csokits, “János Pilinsky’s ‘Desert of Love’: A Note,” in Translating Poetry: The Double Labyrinth, ed. Daniel Weissbort (Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1989), 11. 75 John Felstiner, “Kafka and the Golem: Translating Paul Celan,” in Translating Poetry: The Double Labyrinth, ed. Daniel Weissbort (Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1989), 36. 76 Joseph Cohen, Voices of Israel: Essays on and Interviews with Yehuda Amichai, A.B. Yehoshua, T. Carmi, Aharon Applefeld, and Amos Oz (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990), 100. In an interview with Cohen, T. Carmi adapted this quote from Robert Graves’ poem “To Bring the Dead to Life.” I cited his adapted version,

From a comparative literature perspective, one would be hard pressed to find a poet that did not employ some form of clustering. For repetition is the raw material of rhythm.77 Or rather, repetition of stressed elements elicits a type of anticipation, which encourages a rhythmic response. For rhythm is an anticipatory response brought on by the mind’s desire to complete a perceived partial pattern.78 However, some patterns of repetition are less likely to encourage a rhythmic response. For example, no one dances to a clock’s trochaic beat. Likewise, the metronome is an unobtrusive time keeper, not a dance house drum track. The perfectly predictable pattern does not affect the auditor as acutely as a pattern that defies as it delights, and invites the listener to cognitively participate in completing the pattern.79 And clustering is just one set of tools, which a poet may use to invite their audience to respond rhythmically. In the history of poetry, Ephrem’s lyrics are somewhat unique—in that prosodic clustering is heightened to such a degree that right now it rings aloud from age-worn manuscripts. And the attentive reader is moved to respond rhythmically. Would that Ephrem’s translators rock and sway as they translate!

because it is my judgment that the adaptation is poetically preferable to the original (not to mention more fitting to the topic of translation). 77 The following discussion on rhythm was heavily inspired by the field of cognitive poetics. However, I have intentionally steered clear of scientific precision in favor of flexible language. For a classic introduction to cognitive poetics, see Richard D. Cureton, Rhythmic Phrasing in English Verse (Essex: Longman Group, 1992). My own approach to rhythm, which permeates this study, was inspired by Cureton’s work, but is more directly influenced by Derek Attridge, who insists on fuzzy language instead of Cureton’s rigid language. While Cureton approaches rhythm (pseudo?-) scientifically, Attridge’s focus is on teaching poetry. See the mini-debate between the two authors: Derek Attridge, “Beyond Metrics: Richard Cureton’s Rhythmic Phrasing in English Verse” Poetics Today 17:1 (1996): 9-27; Richard D. Cureton, “A Response to Derek Attridge” Poetics Today 17:1 (1996): 30-50; Derek Attridge, “A Note on Richard Cureton’s Response,” Poetics Today 17:1 (1996): 51-54. 78 This is not intended as a definition, but a working description. On the role of pattern and expectation in the experience of poetry, see Smith, Poetic Closure, 8-14. 79 This language is more evocative than the language of psychology. Psychologists have found that infants are born with the ability to recognize simple (i.e. binary) temporal patterns. And exposure to music and poetry trains the ear to recognize more complex hierarchical patterns, while fine-tuning one’s internal clock. See Tonya R. Bergeson and Sandra E. Trehub, “Infants’ Perception of Rhythmic Patterns,” Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal 23.4 (2006): 355-357. Moreover, infants seem to prefer a complete musical phrase over an incomplete phrase, suggesting an innate ability to recognize temporal patterns and a preference for closure or completion. See Carol L. Krumhansl and Peter W. Jusczyk. “Infants’ Perception of Phrase Structure in Music,” Psychological Science 1.1 (1990): 70-73.

In a careful, stanza-by-stanza study of thirteen Ephremic madrāšē, A.S. Rodrigues

Pereira cites ample examples of clustering (without using any such generic category).80 Where available, he uses specific and standard literary terms such as assonance, consonance, alliteration, anaphora, parallelism, and chiasmus.81 Consonance clusters consonants; and alliteration, word-initial sounds. Assonance clusters vowel sounds; and anaphora, phrase-initial words. And parallelism (including chiasmus) potentially allows for repetition of some elements and elision of others. The previous section showed how parallelism can tighten a ‘polar field.’

Similarly, a skilled author—such as Ephrem—may use parallelism to carefully control which information is repeated and which is elided. Frequently, Ephrem’s parallelism economizes and heightens language and brings repeated elements in line with the measure of the meter. In other words, parallelism tends to rhythmically structure clustered elements.

R. Pereira also cites numerous examples of a repeated root (with and without variation of lexical form). For example, the ironic theme of death’s grief emphatically opens On Nisibis 37: mbakkē-wā: “He began to weep, Death for Sheol….” This theme rhythmically pulses through the song. But in the sixth stanza, Ephrem emphasizes the theme through clustering. The root

√bky (to weep) occurs once per line in lines 3-7: four times as a verb (bkāteh, bkaw, bkay, bkēteh) and once as a noun (bekyā).82 Additionally, three other roots within the same semantic field occur in this stanza to reinforce the cluster while avoiding saturation: to be sad (√kmr; etkamrat, kmīrē), to wail (√yll; yallāteh), and to grieve (√ʾbl, eblā).83 Here (as elsewhere), clustering is a feature of emphasis. But when emphasis is repeated, with enough variation to

80 Technically, his study contextualizes an exposition on cross-dialect Aramaic poetics through diverse corpa, which include some Ephremic texts. R. Pereira, Studies in Aramaic Poetry, 110-179, 237-265. 81 R. Pereira also gives examples of rhyme, but I think what he calls rhyme in the Ephremic corpus is too trivial to be recognized as such. 82 R. Pereira, Studies in Aramaic Poetry, 136-7. 83 Ibid.

50 produce expectation while avoiding the saturation that comes through predictability, then clustering becomes a feature of rhythm as well. And it is entirely possible that the music reflected and amplified the lyrical rhythm.

Perhaps, the most fascinating prosodic feature of Ephrem’s poetry is found where a small set of consonants find their way into a variegated cluster of roots. This is just an elaborate form of highly structured consonance, which—for lack of a better term—I call a ‘quasi-anagramic- series.’84 While this prosodic feature is possible among Indo-European languages, it is well suited to the tri-consonantal structure of Semitic languages. And Ephrem is a master of playing with the root structure of his native tongue. In his commentary on Nisibis 35:15-18, R. Pereira notices that Ephrem plays on the letters nun, gamal, and beth ten times: negbe, ga(n)bārā, ganban (twice), megnab, nbag (twice), nebṣiw, bnay, gbāy.85 In this case, the cluster is not tight enough to produce a strong rhythmic response, but certainly the cluster contributed to the prosodic movement.

This sub-section has introduced the term ‘clustering’ with several examples to show the centrality of this prosodic feature in Ephrem’s lyrics. By using a generic prosodic term, I have stressed that the madrāšē simultaneous deploy a complex web of word-plays in close proximity.

And these word-plays rhythmically lay stress on key terms. While the degree of clustering is somewhat unique to Ephrem, there are, indeed, some examples of effective clustering within the canon of English verse. Possibly, an illustration from a master of English verse can demonstrate the effective use of clustering as a rhythmic and prosodic tool. Shakespeare’s Sonnet 40 clusters

1st and 2nd person singular pronouns (which resolve with a plural in the final line) and layers the

84 This infelicitous name attempts to distill R. Pereira’s descriptive sentence into a single compound noun. Ibid, 120. 85 Technically, R. Pereira notices eight occurrences. I have added two to his list. Ibid, 120-1. While Ephrem uses this prosodic feature frequently, this example stands out for the number of roots involved in the word-play.

51 repeated use of the word “love” with slight variation in meaning. There are many other examples of clustering in this sonnet, but I will leave Shakespeare to speak for himself and close this section:

Take all my loves, my love, yea take them all; What hast thou then more than thou hadst before? No love, my love, that thou mayst true love call; All mine was thine, before thou hadst this more. Then if for my love thou my love receives, I cannot blame thee for my love thou usest; But yet be blamed, if thou this self deceivest By willful taste of what thyself refusest. I do forgive thy robb’ry, gentle thief, Although thou steal thee all my poverty; And yet love knows it is a greater grief To bear love’s wrong than hate’s known injury. Lascivious grace, in whom ill well shows, Kill me with spites; yet we must not be foes.86

On Ephrem’s Poetics, Who Is Able to Speak?

This section contextualizes the foregoing general discussion with an explication of four stanzas taken from three songs. The stanzas were chosen with the following criteria: First, the lyrics had to be relatively self-contained. Second, they were chosen from a single meter-melody

(Who is able to Speak?) to demonstrate several ways to echo the same meter in translation.

Third, they were chosen from several collections to encourage diversity in content and context.

And finally, since the goal was to choose stanzas which were representative rather than those which were particularly remarkable, the stanzas were chosen somewhat randomly among those that fit the above criteria.

86 William Shakespeare, Sonnet 40.

Teaching Song On the Faith 82

Contained within the cycle On the Faith is a sub-cycle On the Pearl. The following stanza is the first stanza from the second On the Pearl. Here the choirmaster directs his song to a pearl. The symbolic language is obvious and explicitly stated in line 8:

What are you like? ܝΕܰͯ͸ܕܳ ͣܽͼ͹ܰ ͵ Let your stillness speak Ͱͳͯܶ ͶΒܶ Α͸ܰ ͓ܺͻ to one who hears you. .Ͱͳ͵ܶ Ά͹ܰ Βܳ ͠͵ܰ With a still mouth, ͔ͯܳ ͶΒܰ ͔͸ܳ ͣΈܽ ͗ speak with us. .ͽ͹ܰ ΄ܰ ͷͶܶ ͸ܰ ܰ For who can hear Ά͹ܰ Βܳ ܕ ͔ܳͼͮܐܕ ܶ your silent whisper? .ͰͳΎܶ ΕΒܶ ܕ ͔͸ܳ ܬܪ ܳ ̄ Your symbol shouts ͔΅ܶ Ύܳ ͰͲܙܶ ܪܐ ܺ ܺ so silently Ε͓ͮΏܳ ͮΕΒܰ about our savior. 87܀ͽΎܰ ܘΑܽ ·ܳ ͷ΄ܰ

The meter-melody consists of a basic metric unit of four syllables gathered into four groups. The present translation loosely reflects this isosyllabic unit by gravitating toward four syllable units.88 The text’s punctuation (taken from the manuscripts) indicates groups of 12 + 8

+ 8 + 12 syllables (the reader unfamiliar with Syriac may scan the vowels located above the consonantal line). Here, the lineation, indention, and punctuation (of text and translation) emphasize both the four-syllable unit and the larger groupings, but an editor may equally favor a four-line layout indicated by the punctuation. However, the lineation of this meter-melody adopted by the edition of the erudite Edmund Beck (and inexplicably adopted by later translators) consisting of five lines of 8 syllables is misleading and distracting.89 For it

87 Consonantal text and punctuation from Vat. Syr. 113 (with Vat. Syr. 111 consulted). 88 Thus, Ephrem has 40 total syllables. And I have 43 total syllables in four groups: 4+5+5 / 4+3 / 4+5 / 4+4+5. And Brock translates as 49 total syllables cut into five lines: 12, 11, 8, 7, 11. Sebastian P. Brock and George A. Kiraz. Ephrem the Syrian: Select Poems Vocalized Syriac Text with English Translation, Introduction, and Notes (Provo, UT: BYU Press, 2006), 249. 89 English translations with a five-line structure abound: Brock, ibid. And R. Pereira offers an almost identical translation to Brock in Studies in Aramaic Poetry, 447. So also Wickes, Hymns on Faith, 381. By far the best English translation I have seen of the Teaching Songs on the Pearl is the prose-paragraph translation in J.B. Morris, Rhythms of Saint Ephrem: Select Works of S. Ephrem the Syrian Translated out of the Original Syriac with Notes

53 encourages reading Ephrem with rhythms counter to those that emerge from the text. In my opinion, it is better to translate as a prose paragraph, like J.B. Morris, than to grossly misrepresent Ephrem’s lyrical movements.

This stanza is founded on a paradox; the pearl is both voiceless and voluble. In Syriac, the second line consists of two words, which succinctly introduce the primary polarity (to speak::to be still). The third line takes the first element of the previous polarity and creates a secondary polar pair (to speak::to hear). Thus, the paradox of something voiceless speaking is echoed by the paradox of hearing that voiceless speech. Through parallelism, the thematic polarity is restated and reformulated in lines four and five. Lines six and seven transform the paradox to a question, whose rhetorical function is to cultivate awe. For Ephrem, paradox almost inevitably leads to admiration (or rather admiratio). Finally, after securing awe, the last three lines transfer awe from the symbol of the pearl to the reality of ‘our savior.’

On one side of the polar hierarchy is stillness (šelyā, šalyā), silence (šetqā, šattīqāʾīt), whispering (retmā), and hearing (šāmaʿ, twice). On the other side is speaking (nêmar, mallel), mouth (pūmā), and shouting (qāʿē). Verbalizing this polarity accounts for over two-thirds of the stanza’s syllables. This polar density is typical of Ephrem’s madrāšē. And on the whispering side of the polar series is the susurration of the repeating sibilant (šin), which is reflected in my

English translation (with the sibilants s and sh). Thus, this stanza uses symbolic language as it clusters synonyms on each side of a polar hierarchy, which is reinforced through clustered hushing sound effects.

and Indices (Oxford: J.H Parker, 1847), 89. Ironically, his volume of “prose” translations tend to be more faithful to the rhythms of the original than the “verse” translations of others.

Teaching Song On the Nativity 11

The imagery of the following song is manifold and moving. Here, as with the previous passage, Ephrem seeks to cultivate a sense of wonder over the incarnation. The poet addresses

Christ and speaks with awe of his mother’s womb. Ephrem concentrates on the womb as the focal point of the incarnation’s paradox. The polar pairs which depict the paradox are obvious and need no special comment. While the focus is on Mary, there is a rhetorical undercurrent which sweeps the audience away with wonder over the divine economy. I have tightened the metric constraints of the translation to perfectly reflect the isosyllabic meter discussed above.

This constraint necessarily led to several minor elisions, but I think the power of concision more than makes up for the loss. And since the prosodic clustering of this passage is primarily a semantic clustering (repeated words and expressions of Divine descent), it should readily show itself in translation.

Stanza 6:

Wondrous mother— ʹ͸ܐ ܝܗ ͖ܪܗܬ Lord entered her, ͖Α͸ ̇͢ ͵ ͷ΄ and became slave. ͖͘͠΄ ͕ܘܗܘ Speech entered her, ͔ͶͶ͸ ͷ΄ and hushed within. ܗ̇ ͣ͗͞ ͰͶΒܘ Thunder entered, ͔͹΄ܪ ̇͢ ͵ ͷ΄ and ceased his sound. ͢ͶΎ ܩΕΒܘ Shepherd entered, ܠͣͲ ͔΄ܪ ͷ΄ became a lamb, ̇͢ ͗ ͕ܘܗ ͖Α͸ܐ out came bleating. ͔΅· ͠Ͳ ΐΈͻ

The pattern of indentation of the Syriac text is designed to highlight the parallelistic structure on which the polar pairs are hung. In this stanza, the act of entering (√ʿll) results in a paradoxical change: Lord became slave and shepherd became lamb; speech hushed and thunder quieted. The parallelism follows a verb-subject order for the first clause and a verb-object order

55 for the second.90 And the meter reinforces this chiastic parallelism into strong rhythmic units.91

Then the penultimate line elicits a false sense of closure by continuing the parallelism, while alternating to an object-verb order.92 But then the final line clenches closure by offering a twist as it anticipates the polarity of following stanza (to enter::to come out). Thus, the last 12 syllable unit conforms to the parallelism of both stanzas—a transition structured by a lyrical genius!

The song continues in Stanza 7:

Your mother’s womb Εͳ·ܗ ͔Ϳ̈ ͳͨ upturned order, ʹ͸ܐܕ ͔;ΑͲ All-Founding One. ͔͵ͣͲ ͽΎΕ͸ Wealth entered her ͖ΑͮΕ΄ ͷ΄ and came out poor. ͽͯͳͿ͸ ͠Ͳ ΐΈͻ Height entered her ͔͸ܪ ̇͢ ͵ ͷ΄ and came out low. ʹͯͳ͸ ͠Ͳ ΐΈͻ Splendor entered, ͕ͣͮܙ ̇͢ ͵ ͷ΄ came out wearing ΐΈͻܘ Δ͘͵ܘ commonplace hues. ͔ͩͯΒ ͔ͻ͚ͣ

The opening of this stanza reinforces the central theme of the former: Mary’s womb is transformative (or rather it is the chosen imaginative focal point of the paradox inherent in the mystery of the incarnation).93 Then the following lines alternate their starts between ʿal (he entered) and npaq (he came out). This polar pair is compacted through parallelism.

Additionally, the defining quality of the being who entered forms an antithesis with his activity or quality exhibited upon exiting (e.g. that One who has the quality of wealth, came out exhibiting poverty). And the penultimate line (in Syriac, but not my translation) delays the

90 Reading w-šatteq (not wa-šteq) in line 7. 91 Brock’s five-line translation captures the sense well, but it dismembers and cripples Ephrem’s invigorating rhythmic units. His lineation choice is inexplicable, since he identifies the meter as 12 + 16 + 12. Brock and Kiraz, Select Poems, 39. 92 I opted for simple English word order (SVO), so the translation does not reflect this poetic turn. But, deviation from a pattern at the end of a section (i.e. “terminal modification”) contributes to closural force. See Smith, Poetic Closure, 53. 93 The use of the word “imaginative” is not intended to make the wonder of Mary’s womb less real, rather it is intended to stress Ephrem’s effective use of verbal iconography. In other words, the lyrics demand the mind’s imaginative engagement.

56 expected npaq (lit. he put on and came out). Thus, brilliantly deviating while fulfilling expectation. And through retrospective patterning, the next line makes this altered word order even more emphatic.94 For the object-clause of the final line (gawnā šīṭā) is separated from its controlling verb by the delayed npaq. In conclusion, these stanzas from Nativity 11 demonstrate imagistic language clustered with tightly deployed antitheses.

Teaching Song Against Errant Doctrines 41

The primary purpose of this final passage is to demonstrate an alternate translation strategy which emphasizes the larger rhythmic movements of the text (long-short-short-long).

This translation strategy takes seriously the punctuation found in early manuscripts. A secondary reason for including this passage is to show an example of symbolic language which is not employed to induce awe (as with the previous examples).

Faith is a pearl and it is not to be carved. Truth’s in symbol of adamant— beneath stamp, unsubdued. So, for every stamp, error is melted wax.95

This stanza contains an example of what Botha frequently calls a double polarity.96 The double polarity happens when a polarity symbolically points to another polarity. Thus, the polarity adamant::wax symbolically point to the polarity truth::error. And furthermore, through “every stamp” error receives multiplicity of form, whereas the faith and truth remain singular and whole.

94 Retrospective patterning is the recognition (or re-cognition) of structure in a temporal grouping after the completion of the pattern. Thus, auditors re-interpret what came before through their understanding of what came after. Smith, Poetic Closure, 119 and passim. 95 CH 41:2. 96 First called a “double antithesis” in Botha, “Antithesis and Argument,” 592.

*****

This chapter has laid the foundation for the next by attending to the choirmaster and his corpus of lyrics. Ephrem was seen to be a talented musician who taught doctrine through well rehearsed songs. And this chapter expounded on the prominent lyrical features of the textual corpus (symbolic language, parallelistic polarities, and prosodic clustering). The question remains: what relationship is there between Ephrem the song writer and Ephrem the homilist?

And do the mēmrē share the prominent poetics of the madrāšē? Among other topics, the following chapter establishes a relationship between the homilist and the song writer, while showing the common ground and distinctive features of the respective genres.

Chapter 3 Swaying an Audience with the Rhythms of Reproof

In a primary oral culture, to solve effectively the problem of retaining and retrieving carefully articulated thought, you have to do your thinking in mnemonic patterns, shaped for ready oral recurrence. Your thought must come into being in heavily rhythmic, balanced patterns, in repetitions or antitheses, in alliterations and assonances, in epithetic and other formulary expressions…. Serious thought is intertwined with memory systems. Mnemonic needs determine even syntax.1

“Oral formulaic thought and expression ride deep in consciousness and the unconscious, and they do not vanish as soon as one used to them takes pen in hand…. Early written poetry everywhere, it seems, is at first necessarily a mimicking in script of oral performance.”2

This chapter focuses on the verse mēmrē (pl.) of Saint Ephrem, with special emphasis on the Verse Homilies of Reproof. In Syriac, the term mēmrā (sing.) is a generic term for any sort of discourse, but it is also the name of a literary genre of isosyllabic Verse Homilies.3 While the

Ephremic corpus contains several examples of a non-metric (albeit rhythmic) prose mēmrā (i.e.

On Our Lord and some of the Prose Refutations), these are not considered here. First, this chapter compares the mēmrē to the madrāšē. Then, it surveys the interrelated topics of meter, rhythm, and versification to establish a sure foundation for an analysis of the rhythms of reproof.

After the rhythms are reviewed, the reception of the “Ephremic” meter by later poets is briefly considered.

Singing Songs, Preaching Homilies

Ephrem’s mēmrē survive in a simple isosyllabic meter of 7 + 7 syllables, with neither stanza, refrain, nor rhyme. Scholars have speculated that these homilies were chanted, intoned,

1 Emphasis added. Walter J. Ong, Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word (London & New York: Routledge, 1982), 34. Even though, Ong’s work only occasionally enters into this chapter, his work was the fertile field in which the seeds of this chapter took their life. 2 Ibid, 26. 3 See Sidney H. Griffith, “The Poetics of Scriptural Reasoning: Syriac Mēmrē at Work,” Studia Patristica 78 (2017): 7.

58 59 or somehow cadenced.4 And certainly, it is difficult to read the sermons aloud without vocally responding to the prosodic movements. Ephrem likely delivered his homilies in the Nisibene church.5 At the very least, On Nicomedia 8 finds its Sitz im Leben within the church, where

Ephrem’s voice rang out a lament for the church of Nicomedia, “In this holy place…. In this temple, let us mourn that one.”6 And perhaps, the preaching posture Ephrem adopted was the one he himself commended (albeit as part of an illustration of optics):

If you open your mouth very wide and cry out, your voice goes adrift and is weak. But if you tighten your lips a little on the outside and make with them a spacious cavity on the inside, your voice will collect itself and be strong—especially, if you look down and not up.7 So, Ephrem likely stood upon the sanctuary’s platform and tilted his face toward his audience as he reproved with moving speech from a tight-lipped mouth.

And like the madrāšē, Ephrem’s mēmrē express their themes through imagery, polar structures, parallelism, and prosodic clustering. Charles Renoux notices that within the Verse

Homilies on Nicomedia two seven syllable periods come together to form a unity, where synonymic and antithetic parallelism abounds.8 And Ephrem’s fertile imagination expresses itself through imagery and personification.9 Likewise, Edmund Beck notices that the Verse

Homilies of Reproof reveal Ephrem’s predilection for parallels and antitheses, as well as strikingly-appropriate (treffend) and life-like imagery.10

4 Ibid. See also Harvey, Song and Memory, 27. 5 Why date the homilies to Nisibis? For the Homilies on Nicomedia, see Chapter 1. For the Homilies on the Faith, see Edmund Beck, Ephraems über den Glauben: Ihr theologischer Lehrgehalt und ihr geschichtlicher Rahmen, Studia Anselmiana 33 (Rome: Pontificium Institutum S. Anselmi, 1953), 111-112. For the Homilies of Reproof, see Edmund Beck, Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermones I, CSCO 305-306 (Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO (Peeters), 1970), v-viii. See also the following chapter. 6 Nic 8:585ff. See Renoux, Mēmrē sur Nicomédie, xxiii, xxviii. 7 E.A. Bevan and F.C. Burkitt. S. Ephraim’s Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan. Vol 2. (London: Williams and Norgate, 1921), page 36, lines 23-35. 8 Renoux, Mēmrē sur Nicomédie, xxvi-xxvii. 9 Unlike den Biesen (Simple and Bold, passim), Renoux interprets Ephrem’s imagery primarily as an art of communication. Ibid, xxix. 10 Beck, Sermones I (edition), vi-ix

Perhaps, this similarity derives from a common cultural stock as well as from our poet’s personal prosodic (and even philosophical) predilections. For, Ephrem’s art likely followed the movements of his contemporaries. Unfortunately, we cannot trace the entire trail of Ephrem’s influences. We know that his songs were influenced by the pop-songs of his theological adversary Bar Dayṣan.11 We also know that Ephrem adopted the theological vision of his bishops, as he developed a deep admiration for the preaching eloquence of Vologeses in particular.12 And it is worth noting that Ephrem’s preaching probably began during Vologeses’ mature career.13 However, since none of the bishop’s sermons survive, no comparison can be made. This is rather unfortunate, for it would be a joy to read sermons that the melodious

Ephrem thought were artfully composed.

****

While some of Ephrem’s homilies have a timeless quality that may have lent themselves to a repeat performance (e.g. Verse Homilies On the Faith and Reproof 3), many others were occasional pieces, hastily composed for specific situations unfolding within the community (e.g.

Verse Homilies Nicomedia and Reproof 1 & 2). It is unlikely that Ephrem read out a prewritten script.14 And while it is possible that he memorized a prewritten text of his sermons, it is equally possible that some of his sermons were composed extemporaneously. But if the sermons were conceived as they were preached, what is the relationship between homily preached and homily inscribed? Our only evidence is the texts themselves. And the textually transmitted structure invites (rather, demands) the inquiry, while denying a facile answer.

11 Griffith, “Clash of Madrāšē,” 460ff. 12 See Chapter 1. 13 On dating the homilies, see n. 4 above. 14 As Ong says, “…in antiquity it was not common practice for any but disgracefully incompetent orators to speak from a text prepared verbatim in advance.” Ong, Orality and Literacy, 10.

It may be said that these texts contain “oral residue.”15 At least, Ephrem’s verse brims with memory aides. For the prosodic features discussed in the previous chapter encourage recall.16 But in contrast to the ad hoc homilies, Ephrem’s songs were meticulously crafted and then memorized, rehearsed, performed, and likely re-performed. Even though some qualities of the lyrics may be appreciated on first encounter, Ephrem likely intended his songs to teach through performative repetition. Obviously, the songs were orally performed, but the complex and hierarchical lyrics are inconsistent with an oral composition.

The oral composition of the Verse Homilies of Reproof cannot be so easily dismissed.

For their structure favors non-sequential parataxis.17 The beginning and end appear fixed, but the order of the internal elements can readily be rearranged and modified without any noticeable change to the structure. While some short passages are sequential, those passages themselves fit into their sermons non-sequentially. However, when the rhythms of reproof are considered later in the chapter, it will be seen that the homilies are not without their own hierarchical complexities. Thus, the relationship between text and oral performance must remain indeterminate.

Furthermore, the homilies frequently express their themes through redundancy; theme is stated and restated and stated again (and only sometimes with added nuance). And unlike the madrāšē, the mēmrē frequently employ nearly exact parallelism:

15 This evocative phrase is appropriated from Ong and (slightly) repurposed. Ibid, 38. 16 See passages cited at the opening of the present chapter. 17 On paratactic structure, see Smith, Poetic Closure, 98-109.

Let not the one who blames be ashamed when he receives a life-giving rebuke. Let not the one who corrects be ashamed even when he receives correction. Let not the one who reproves be ashamed even when he comes to instruction.18 Yet, unlike the songs which employed parallelism to compress information, this parallel series seems to have the opposite intention. For restatement does not build upon an idea; it reinforces an existing idea and commits it to memory. Moreover, the above passage can be rearranged and modified. And without any structural change to the surrounding material, I could add my own novel line anywhere in the series: “Let not the one who admonishes be ashamed even when he is shown his blemish (lā netnakkap man d-martē / d-āp hū netḥawwē l-mūmeh).”

This fluid structure is typical of the homilies. It is also typical of “primitive and naïve styles” as well as oral cultures.19 This observation is not a criticism of the poesis of the homilies.

Quiet the opposite! Here the choirmaster has shown himself a master-preacher. For Ephrem’s poetics (in song and homily) are subservient to the rhetorical constraints of their performative context. Both song and homily seek to persuade an audience to adopt a particular view or course of action. And repetition was a key mnemonic component, which allowed Ephrem’s persuasive speech to persist in memory instead of voice. Whereas the songs had extra repetition built into rehearsals and repeat performances, the homilies had to rely on repetition built into their very structure. And wandering attention spans had to be accommodated. The tightly packed informational content of the Teaching Songs would likely lead to fatigue and inattention in the lengthy Verse Homilies. Thus, it is not surprising that Ephrem varies his speech so as to avoid losing his audience.

18 Reproof 2:47-53. 19 See Smith, Poetic Closure, 98. On ‘memorization’ in oral cultures, see Ong, Orality and Literacy, 60.

Therefore, if we set aside the obvious genre differences entailed in the distinction between choral lyrics and preached verse (e.g. stanzas, refrains, etc.), the chief distinction between these genres lies in their informational density. For the prosodic features of the madrāšē are present in the mēmrē, but deployed in a relaxed form. The horseshoe magnet analogy adopted in the previous chapter may be pushed further to express this difference. The homilies have un-bent the horseshoe magnet, thereby relaxing the polar field. The total intellectual force in both is the same. Yet the homilies give the wordplays more room to play.

The same poetics exist in both genres. But the homilies tend to unfurl the themes, which were wound tightly in the songs. Whereas it is difficult to find a stanza among Ephrem’s lyrics without several layers of prosodic clustering, the homilies tend to have small unobtrusive clusters of two or three words interspersed with rare passages exhibiting astonishingly fecund wordplay.20 This difference in informational density derives from a difference in performative context and not a difference in genius.

Meter, Rhythm, and Versification

Beck asserts that Ephrem’s homilies have no structure (Gliederung) beyond the 7 + 7 syllable unit.21 This section problematizes this assertion, while laying the foundation for a renewed appreciation of the movements of Ephrem’s Verse Homilies. For, a lack of appreciation of Ephrem’s homiletic structure and rhythms has likely contributed to the near silence in academic literature on their poetic movements.22 First, the concept of rhythm and meter is problematized. And then the isosyllabic line structure is problematized. The following section

20 For a particularly astounding example, see Reproof 2:1279-1316. 21 Beck, Sermones I (edition), v. 22 Robert Murray suggests that a shift in popularity from madrāšē to mēmrē led to “versification all too facile and monotonous,” insinuating that the mēmrē were poetically inferior, because their meter was simple. But I have yet to hear Robert Frost criticized for his “facile and monotonous” meter. For a poem is far more than its meter. See Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom, 32.

64 will contextualize and clarify this discussion with specific examples taken from the Verse

Homilies of Reproof. There, an inductive argument is made for complex and variegated rhythms

(amid simple meter) in Ephrem’s mēmrē.

The full appreciation of poetic rhythm requires familiarity with a poem’s language and its poetic form. For example, a native (but naïve) speaker of English would likely have some degree of rhythmic response upon hearing a Shakespearean sonnet for the first time. Yet, the reader who is also familiar with the genre (sonnet) and the meter (iambic pentameter) will likely have a stronger rhythmic response. So, familiarity with the tradition of a genre further heightens rhythmic anticipation and response.

All languages tend toward periodic movement, as both physiological and psychological factors place constraints upon speech.23 And each language has particular ways of economizing upon these constraints through periodicity.24 Poetic language typically heightens certain periodic features already present within the spoken language.25 And this heightening of the periodic participates in making poetic rhythm perceptible. Whatever else might be said about the psychology of rhythmic response, one experiences a sense of anticipation reinforced by localized fulfilment. And a skilled poet carefully controls this anticipation and fulfillment.26 For if a poet does not create a sense of anticipation in his audience, his poem is unlikely to create a rhythmic response. Yet, a poem which is too easily anticipated does not produce a sense of fulfilment, but of tiresome monotony.

23 Attridge, Moving Words, 57, 112. 24 I would like to distinguish between periodicity as a feature of a language and rhythm as a psychological response to the periodic. However, for the sake of felicitous English, I will employ the term rhythm as short hand for those periodic elements which have reasonable potential for a rhythmic response. 25 Ibid. 26 This not to imply that a poet is fully aware of his own craft. Also, on the control of anticipation and fulfillment (albeit with different vocabulary), see Attridge, Poetic Rhythm, 197-202.

With this in mind, a distinction needs to be made between meter and rhythm. However, I would like to make the distinction by example rather than by employing rigorous definitions.

For, the beauty of poetry lies in its fluidity, not its rigidity. Certainly, in some poetic genres meter contributes significantly to rhythm (e.g. English nursery rhymes). In such works, it is difficult to discuss rhythm without reference to meter. Yet, English free verse is a genre without meter that can nevertheless produce a strong rhythmic response. Contrariwise, syllabic verse has rigorous meter measured with a fixed number of syllables in a line, but it is not likely to produce a rhythmic response without the aid of other periodical movements.27 Perhaps, the meter of syllabic verse is a near kin to the metronome. It is a timekeeper—better yet, it is a time signature!

****

Since the syllabic meter of the mēmrē is simple, the reader who conflates meter with rhythm will most likely miss the great variety of rhythms found within these simple syllabic patterns. It is commonplace to recount that Ephrem’s mēmrē are composed in isosyllabic verses of 7 + 7 syllables. But why not simply say that his verse is seven syllables long? What evidence is there for isosyllabic versification in Ephrem’s homilies? 28

The manuscripts punctuate the meter in a variety of ways:29 sometimes as simple heptasyllabic verse;30 other times as compound isosyllabic forms 7 + 731 or 7 + 7 / 7 + 7.32 The

27 The reader who is not convinced should note that the above sentence is segmented into units of seven syllables. Yet, the sentence was unlikely to induce a rhythmic response: Contrariwise, syllabic / verse has rigorous meter / measured with a fixed number / of syllables in a line, / but it is not likely to / produce a rhythmic response / without the aid of other / periodical movements. 28 Without qualification, the spatial metaphors inherent in the terms “line” and “verse” seems to imply too great a degree of graphocentricism. However, the terms are only used here as short hand to convey “the rhythmic grouping of orally performed temporal patterns, which have been preserved orthographically.” 29 My access to manuscripts was limited. A separate research project should fully analyze the intersection between rhythm and punctuation in the manuscript tradition. 30 See BM 12176 transcribed in Appendix B. 31 See Reproof 2 in Vat. Syr. 117 (236r ff).

66 simple heptasyllabic verse marks each seven syllable unit with a single point. The compound isosllyabic forms mark the mid line with two points (܆), the line end with a single point (.), and in the latter case the end of a twenty eight syllable section is marked with four points (܀).

The earliest surviving treatise on Syriac poetics and versification is found in The Fifth

Book of the Rhetoric of Antony of Tagrit (c. 9th C.).33 Therein, Antony calls the simple heptasyllabic (šbīʿāyat hegyānā) meter “Ephremic.”34 And he attributes an example of heptasyllabic meter to a mēmrē of Ephrem.35 Antony also recognizes a double meter (mūšḥtā

ʿpīptā), which is “cut in the middle of an element (ʾesṭuksā: grk. stichos, i.e. a verse) by a point and by the sense.”36 And he gives his own compositions as examples of Ephremic heptasyllabic

“double meter” with a variety of other simple groupings of three to seven syllables.37 His own example of seven doubled with seven reads like one of Ephrem’s own homilies.38 Thus, an argument could be made for versifying Ephrem’s poetic line as either heptasyllabic (7) or doubled heptasyllabic (7 + 7) from Antony’s metric principals.39

Nevertheless, if these traditions were the only reason to call his verse “isosyllabic,” then this description would not aid the modern readers’ appreciation of the movement of Ephrem’s verse. Such a description would only instruct about the tradition and not the verses at the source of that tradition. However, it is my contention that the tradition and modern scholarship correctly versify Ephrem’s mēmrē as 7 + 7 syllables.

32 See Vat 464 transcribed in appendix B. 33 J.W. Watt, The Fifth Book of the Rhetoric of Antony of Tagrit, CSCO 481-82 (Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO (Peeters), 1986). 34 Ibid, (text) 48, (translation) 39. 35 Ibid, (text) 50, (translation) 41. 36 Ibid, (text) 32, (translation) 26. Thus, from the perspective of Antony’s poetics, the English term “hemistich” may be a particularly appropriate term for the isosyllabic half-verse. 37 Ibid, (text) 34-36, (translation) 28-29. 38 Ibid, (text) 36, (translation) 29. 39 Although it would take us too far afield here, it could prove beneficial in a future study to read Ephrem’s poetics and meter through the lens of Antony’s canons.

****

Before continuing the discussion of Ephrem’s versification, it would be helpful to digress into an infamous episode in the history of English verse and versification. As the publisher and editor Samuel Simmons was preparing to release a second printing of John Milton’s epic

Paradise Lost, he asked Milton to provide some explanation and defense for the peculiar lack of end rhyme in his heroic blank verse.40 Milton scornfully responds to his “vulgar readers” that rhyme was “the invention of a barbarous age” and is “no necessary adjunct or true ornament of a poem or good verse.”41 As such, he was merely following his esteemed predecessors in Greek and Latin, while avoiding his barbarous contemporaries. Milton argues that poetic “musicality” does not depend on the “jangling sound of like endings,” but “consists only in apt numbers, fit quantity of syllables, and the sense variously drawn out from one verse into another.”42

A century later, Samuel Johnson, a prolific scholar of English literature and lexicography, responds to Milton with equal scorn in his Lives of the Most Eminent English Poets. He accuses

Milton of choosing blank verse simply because it was easier than rhymed verse. While I do not agree with Johnson’s critique of Milton, his short argument for the importance of rhyme in

English verse is profoundly insightful. And with a little modification can be useful when discussing poetry and versification from a cross-linguistic or a comparative literature perspective. Johnson argues:

But, perhaps of poetry as a mental operation, metre or musick is no necessary adjunct; it is by the musick of metre that poetry has been discriminated in all languages; and in languages melodiously constructed, by a due proportion of long and short syllables, metre is sufficient. But one language cannot communicate its rules to another: where metre is

40 Simmons writes, “Courteous reader, there was no argument at first intended to the book, but for the satisfaction of many that have desired it, I have procured it, and withal a reason of that which stumbled many others: why the poem rhymes not.” John Milton, The Complete English Poems, ed. Gordon Campbell (New York: Everyman’s Library, 1992), 148. 41 Ibid. 42 Ibid.

scanty and imperfect, some help is necessary. The musick of the English heroick line strikes the ear so faintly that it is easily lost, unless all the syllables of every line co- operate together: this co-operation can be only obtained by the preservation of every verse unmingled with another, as a distinct system of sounds; and this distinctness is obtained and preserved by the artifice of rhyme. The variety of pauses, so much boasted by the lovers of blank verse, changes the measures of an English poet to the periods of a declaimer; and there are only a few skilful and happy readers of Milton, who enable their audience to perceive where the lines end or begin. ‘Blank verse,’ said an ingenious critick, ‘seems to be verse only to the eye.’43 Johnson criticizes Milton for attempting to import Greek and Latin norms into English without recognizing that the musicality of the English heroic line is less pronounced than its classical counterparts. Johnson argues that rhyme is necessary to maintain the sense of the line—to ensure a rhythmic response to a perceived group—among the auditors.44

But if heroic English iambic pentameter is faint, Syriac syllabic verse is even fainter.

Yet, classical Syriac poets never use line-end rhyme as a formal feature.45 And presumably their verse was not “verse only to the eye.” The genre’s popularity suggests its success in moving audiences with its rhythms. Therefore, it will be helpful to extrapolate Johnson’s criticism to a general principal: the poet who wishes to maintain an unmingled distinction between verses in a musically faint language must find some way to reinforce the temporally sounded group (i.e. the line). And with this, there is the corollary: if a distinction between verses is recognized by auditors, there must be some sense of line-end closure to maintain periodicity.

And this extrapolation and its corollary can be restricted and expanded to apply directly to Syriac verse. Syriac poetry was composed as verse for the ear. But the musicality of syllabic verse is too faint to maintain the line as a rhythmic grouping. Certainly, a preacher could have

43 Samuel Johnson, The Lives of the Most Eminent English Poet: with Critical Observations on their Works (London: Printed for T. Longman, et al., 1781), 1:266-7. 44 Since Johnson’s day, English poets have developed genres of poetry (e.g. free verse and concrete poetry) where even a trained ear would have difficulty hearing a poetic line as a distinct unit, even when the poem is skillfully articulated. Yet, classical Syriac verse is marked by orality and quasi-orality. 45 Later Syriac poets frequently use line end rhyme. Perhaps, the norms of Arabic poetry influenced the late poets. Much work remains to be done in post-classical Syriac verse.

69 cadenced his speech to assure the perception of rhythmic groups. Yet, in that case, the rhythms would simply consist in performative inflection and not the poetic form. However, if the rhythm lies dormant in the text awaiting a sensitive reading (as I maintain), there should be formal features which provide a sense of closure at line-end. Furthermore, if the isosyllabic structure of

Ephrem’s homilies may be perceived by the ear alone, there should be two expectations of closure: a soft expectation at mid line and a firm expectation at end line. And this is precisely what we find.

The Rhythms of Reproof

This section examines several common rhythmic figures found among the Verse

Homilies of Reproof. First, individual verses (fourteen syllables in the Syriac) are categorized and briefly annotated to introduce the reader to Ephrem’s rhythmic building blocks. Here, the commentary is kept to an absolute minimum, allowing the juxtaposition of similar figures to illustrate the category.46 Then, these basic blocks are seen assembled within their phrasal structures and are analyzed with regard to their phrasal movements (note that “phrase” is here borrowed from music theory not linguistics). Throughout, attention is paid to the complex rhythms moving through the simple time signature of the isosyllabic verse of Ephrem’s homilies.

Of course, rhythmic figures in the Ephremic corpus could receive scientific treatment through statistical analysis of linguistic categories. However, that study would likely be as tedious to read as it would be to write.47 Moreover, my contention is that the figures discussed here are those which have high potential to elicit the subjective experience of a rhythmic

46 The didactic methodology adopted here is based on the conviction that the select verses will naturally encourage a rhythmic reading of the texts, where the phrasal rhythms of the English reflect the Syriac rhythms. Unfortunately, this methodology assumes that the reader has a fluency with the rhythms of spoken English and is able to respond when the rhythms are heightened. 47 I do not want to disparage corpus linguistics in general. I can think of several reasons why this could be important in this corpus. Nevertheless, scientific categories would not aid the current didactic goal.

70 response. Either the reader will respond rhythmically or not. And it seems unlikely that the abstract prominences of charts and stemplots would elicit a stronger response. Here, I do not wish to convey abstract knowledge. Rather, I seek to encourage a visceral response (foot tapping and head bobbing) among Ephrem’s readers. The translations reflect (in a mirror darkly) the isosyllabic form of the original with semantic balance and simplicity. And, the examples presented in this section were selected and arranged to be read aloud so the rhythm of the text might be felt as similar patterns of movement are read side by side.

****

The first set of example verses do not tend to elicit a strong rhythmic response in isolation. For their sense is variously stretched across the isosyllabic break, thereby weakening the duple verse common in Ephrem’s homilies. Therefore, I tentatively call this figure the

‘simple’ or ‘speech’ rhythm. Even though these lines do not have a strong rhythm in isolation, they are frequently employed within larger rhythmic structures as punctuated semantic prominences. Thus, they contribute to the periodic alternation of relative semantic stress, which induces a rhythmic response.

The English translations of this set reflect the Syriac word order and lineation where possible. This was done to draw attention to the fact that Ephrem carefully controls the flow of information by frequently fronting topic phrases through the syntactic flexibility of Syriac.

However, since this was not possible for the last two examples, I have also included an alternate

‘translation’ which preserves word order.

The reader is encouraged to experiment by reading both with and without emphasis on the mid-verse caesura:

And a briar of spots will choke / the beautiful blossom of youth. (1:572f)

The sound of the popping of their bones / pops out their eyes. (α:101f)

See, my sins on every side / admonish me to be still. (2:17f)

They approached discipleship, order, / reading, and doctrine. (1:384f) **To discipleship and order, they were approaching / and to reading and doctrine.

Everyone seeks to gather / disciples to himself by any means. (1:396f) **Disciples seeks everyone / by any means to gather to him.

Between the border of this set and the next, two more examples may be added:

Two things a glamorous person wears: / clothing along with ostentation. (1:41f)

Gather up and cast out from it manure: / ugly associations and habits. (1:119f)

Here, the first hemistich is semantically and grammatically stable, which results in a slightly stronger isosyllabic break. Yet, the stability is weakened by subsequent apposition.

**** The next set is quite common and consists of two isosyllabic clauses juxtaposed. I call this the ‘norm’ or ‘prevailing’ rhythm, because Ephrem’s verse favors this form. The examples were chosen to showcase semantic variety amid rhythmic similarity. They are broken into three main groups in order of increasing emphasis on the mid-verse caesura: 1) Those which lead with a dependent clause and follow with an independent clause. 2) Those which lead with an independent clause and follow with a dependent clause. 3) Those with two independent clauses.

The reader is encouraged to over emphasize the caesura to train the senses to feel the bipartite structure.

● Dependent first:

Because (meṭṭul) the belly is small, / it is helpful for it to receive in measure. (1:7f)

If (en) you gaze upon a great mountain; / it will be your teacher, if you wish. (3:361f)

● Independent first:

Fervent anger chilled out, / since (d-) the entire city became chilly. (1:33f)

The sick physician is not ashamed / when (d-) he is healed by his own medicines. (2:45f)

Let us recognize what time it is, / so (d-) we might learn its cultivation from it. (2:77f)

There, festering boils spread, / which (d-) left ulcers on an entire nation. (α:551f)

● Two independent clauses (also note the prevalence of parallelism and polar pairs):

Everything in measure is pleasant; / Everything in measure is sweet. (1:5f)

Be instructed by your labors; / Be corrected by your sowings. (2:83f)

Pain compels me to speak; / order commands me to be silent. (1:1f)

The Messiah lives in his apostles, / and the Evil One, in his disciples! (2:1965f)

Wealth is in your mind / and poverty in your house. (3:301f)

Heaven above is your mirror; / earth below is your medicine. (3:365f)

The people alone, he saved; / and the land alone, he changed. (α:575f)

The mind is not like the belly; / its womb is too large for measure. (1:9f)

Your mind is your tablet; / on it is written every law. (3:393f)

Injustice surpasses smoke; / See! It billows everywhere! (2:367f)

Justice is not on earth; / we chased her up to heaven. (2:581f)

He was the greatest of the prophets, / and a small sandal slew him. (1:71f)

The decrees are being written / and the hearts of fools are distending! (3:99f)

They look at the depth below / and flames spring up. (α:107f)

The people made a calf in the wilderness / and wantonly worshipped it. (α:599f)

****

The first passage considered is about Herodias and John the Baptist. And Ephrem wishes to emphasize the role that the dancing shoe played in John’s demise. Verses one to three and six

73 follow the ‘prevailing’ isosyllabic-clause rhythm, while verses four and five follow the ‘simple’ rhythm.

1 With all artifice she strove; and Herodias was defeated. 2 Many traps she buried; and John she did not capture. 3 With silver and gold she bribed; and the herald she did not kill.

4 The head, which gold did not buy, the sandal with a dance severed. 5 Gold, slayer of the innocent, power over John could not find. 6 Outmatched was bribe, blinder of eyes, when the sandal blinded eyes.48

The passage opens with an emphatic triple parallel of the prevailing rhythm, which stresses that bribes—the traditional means of perverting justice—had failed Herodias. But, the fourth verse switches to the ‘simple’ rhythm and collapses the theme of the first three verses into a single seven syllable noun phrase. Then, verse four concludes with a shocking turn: where gold failed, a sandal prevailed! Finally, verses five and six restate and expand verse four. And the rhythmic movements of this passage are reflected through the sequence of verbs. While each hemistich in the first three verses ends with a feminine verb, the hemistichs of the fourth verse end with masculine verbs. Then the final two verses employ a chiastic structure, which juxtaposes their verbs (find-outmatch) across the verse boundary and stiches together the stichs.

Contra Beck, this passage relies upon complex rhythmic structures beyond the 7 + 7 syllable meter. Soon, I will employ a phrasal scansion of the passage to illustrate several ‘layers’ of structure, which can be simultaneously experienced. The scansion is included to illustrate the textually transmitted movements, which when read with feeling have a tendency to elicit a rhythmic response. However, my contention is that Ephrem’s auditors would have been

48 1:89-100. The translation follows Syriac word order closer than the translation found in the Appendices.

74 accustomed to these rhythms and would have responded naturally. But, most of my auditors have yet to internalized Ephrem’s rhythms of reproof. Thus, the scansion is included only as an aid to train the ear.

Phrasal rhythm may be considered as a pattern of anticipation (ANT), extension (EXT), and arrival (ARR).49 Anticipation propels the auditor forward in search of closure.50 When closure is reached (or arrived at) there is a sense stability, fulfillment, or satisfaction, which may be called ‘arrival.” And frequently, the forward movement (punctuated by anticipation and arrival) halts during a period of extension. Ephrem seems to have carefully controlled and heightened (consciously or not) the periodicity of these phrasal movements to rhythmically sway his audience.

Moreover, poetic phrasal movement is hierarchical in the sense that a short rhythmic phrase may simultaneously be an element of a longer rhythmic movement. In the above passage, the first isosyllabic hemistich may be considered as a phrase of anticipation, whose stability is secured by the arrival of the second hemistich. The same can be said for the next two verses (see leftmost scansion). However, through parallelistic restatement, the second and third verses are also heard as a period of extension following the anticipation and arrival of the first verse (see middle scansion). And in turn, the first three verses anticipate the arrival of the next three verses

(see rightmost scansion). The various simultaneous movements of the passage may be depicted with a phrasal scansion of three levels:51

49 See Attridge, Poetic Rhythm, 182-209. See also, Cureton, Rhythmic Phrasing, 146-153. Attridge also includes a fourth movement: ‘statement.’ But, in order to streamline the current discussion, I have folded the senses of ‘statement’ into ‘anticipation’ and ‘extension.’ Ultimately, I am not interpreting Ephrem in light of Attridge and Cureton. Rather, I am exploiting and appropriating their studies on English verse as an aid to interpreting Ephrem. Their studies were often abstract enough to encourage the appropriation. 50 Of course, the reader is also his own auditor. 51 If time and space permitted, lower and higher levels of phrasal movement could be depicted.

1 With all artifice she strove; ANT ANT and Herodias was defeated. ARR ARR 2 Many traps she buried; ANT ANT and John she did not capture. ARR EXT 3 With silver and gold she bribed; ANT and the herald she did not kill. ARR

4 The head, which gold did not buy, ANT the sandal with a dance severed. ARR 5 Gold, slayer of the innocent, ARR power over John could not find. EXT 6 Outmatched was bribe, blinder of eyes, when the sandal blinded eyes.

Yet, the argument is not for this particular scansion. For the best verse—the verse that begs to be read again and again—always suggests competing scansions. Rather, the argument is that this typical Ephremic passage has a complex hierarchy of simultaneously forward moving poetic phrases—albeit the rhythms are set to a simple meter. This is analogous to a complex musical piece written in a simple time signature.

Furthermore, this scansion also shows Ephrem’s predilection for twos and threes.

Ephrem’s duple structure is seen in individual verses (1-3) as well as in verse pairs (5-6). And two types of triple structure are observed in verses 1-3 (parallelism) and 4-6 (statement plus duple expansion). These duple and triple rhythmic figures are common throughout the Homilies of Reproof. Similarly, duple and triple figures are common in Ephrem’s madrāšē.52

****

In the following passage, Ephrem argues that the apparent strength of Satan (the Bold) and his followers is actually evidence of their weakness—a common theme in Reproof 2. The

Bold One (ḥaṣṣīpā) teaches his chutzpah to his followers and inevitably one or the other is shown to be ineffectual. Most of the verses (1, 5-8) follow the prevailing dual-clause rhythm.

And a couple verses (2, 4) follow the ‘simple’ rhythm. However, verse three is unusual (but not

52 See, R. Pereira, Studies in Aramaic Poetry, 110-179, 237-265 (passim).

76 unique) in that it is grammatically dependent on another verse.53 The passage also deploys duple and triple rhythms similar to the previous passage. A three-level phrasal scansion is included:

1 If you are not aware of his boldness, ANT learn it from his servants. ARR ANT ANT 2 For with mighty names, EXT they exorcise the Demon every day. 3 With a prayer and a rebuke, ANT with gesticulation and hissing, ARR 4 with all these torments, EXT tormented is the Bold One. ARR

5 Force daily uproots him, ANT EXT but he remains as a squatter. ARR

6 If his servants are bold, ANT ANT how bold is the teacher of boldness! ARR ARR 7 If such is his boldness, ANT ARR one more bold will overcome him. ARR 8 But if by force he is not led, ANT EXT EXT 54 one inferior to him worships him ARR

As with the previous example, these verses alternate (with a few minor deviations) between anticipation and arrival, which pivots at the mid-verse caesura. The sense of stability rhythmically reinforced through periodicity induces a strong expectation of closure every fourteen syllables, thereby securing the form of the verse within the minds of the auditors. And the pivot between anticipation and arrival similarly reinforces the expectation of a twist or change between isosyllabic sections of the verse.

This alternation along an isosyllabic pivot serves the same function as line-end rhyme in

English heroic verse (as per Johnson), in that it reinforces the measure of the meter. Ephrem carefully controls his phrasal rhythm as he variously draws his sense from one verse to another.

53 Most common are dependent clauses, such as this conditional statement: If you want Him to be quick to punish you for the offence, then you also rightly complain when He delays with your oppressor. (3:25-8) Less common is a dependent prepositional phrase, as above. 54 Reproof 2:161-174.

Thus, he successfully secures the integrity of the isosyllabic line structure, while avoiding the accusation of monotony. Ephrem’s verse homilies do not require chanting or special toning to be heard and responded to rhythmically. The rhythm is built into the sense and the measure.

Furthermore, prosodic clustering is a prominent feature here, which contributes significantly to the rhythm. The root √ḥṣp (to be bold) is used seven times in this passage; five of those times are in two adjacent verses! The rhetorical function of the cluster becomes clear when the cluster is considered in relation to the rightmost phrasal scansion. The first two occurrences55 are found once each in the sections of anticipation and extension. Then, a cluster of five occurrences arrives and clenches closure. Here, as elsewhere, prosodic clustering is an emphatic figure of speech which highlights the sermon’s sweeping rhythms of anticipation and arrival.

****

The final passage comes from the final homily translated in the appendices. This poetic depiction of future judgment deserves its place next to Milton’s Paradise Lost and Dante’s

Divine Comedy. And as with those two poems, this homily uses judgment language to offer a poignant socio-political critique. The aural and visual imagery is striking. The onomatopoeic soundscape of the Syriac is horrifying, yet beautiful. And the rhythms are consistent with the rhythms of the first three Verse Homilies of Reproof. Yet, the overall flow is something special and unique. No commentary beyond the phrasal scansion is given here; the rhythms of reproof await a rhythmic response. However, notice that phrasal scansion indicates that the passage is divorced from larger phrasal movements:

55 There are also three more occurrences in the four proceeding verses. See Reproof 2:153ff.

ARR With a quivering gasp they quaver ANT /ARR also with a spasmodic shiver. EXT They open their mouth wide with suffering ANT/ARR EXT and belch forth blazing fire. EXT

From their nostril holes, ANT ANT ARR smoke billows forth. ARR Since with them they were uncleanly cackling, ANT ARR in the fire they will justly crackle. ARR

The deceitful gates of their ears ANT ANT are uprooted with the force of fire, ARR

since they were foolishly opened ANT ARR 56 and were wickedly shut. ARR

The Reception of Ephremic Meter

The Syriac homiletic tradition still needs numerous foundational studies, before there can be a comprehensive study of comparative poetics. However, a few tentative remarks can be made here to suggest further research. The present study is explicitly designed to aid such an ambitious project. The 7 + 7 meter of Ephrem’s verse homilies remained a popular option for subsequent homilists. Ephrem’s fame in this genre was recognized by the homiletic tradition as this meter came to be called “Ephremic.” While Ephrem’s homilies favored duple and triple verse groupings, the tradition seems to have honed in on his duple structure. Thus, Ephrem’s free alteration of duple and triple structure eventually gives ways to 7 + 7 / 7 + 7 syllable verse.

Passages from four homilists writing in Ephremic meter are presented here with brief commentary.

While some homilists wrote in multiple meters, Ephrem’s younger contemporary

Cyrillona (fl. ca. 396) idiosyncratically altered his meter within his homilies for rhetorical

56 Reproof α:117-128.

79 effect.57 Carl Griffin notices that the seven syllable lines of On the Institution of the Eucharist are generally grouped into ‘couplets’ (i.e. 7 + 7).58 But unlike Ephem, who uses rhetorical devices to group his verses into duple and triple figures, Cyrillona seems to prefer a simple structure that only hints at duple verse form:

In a veil the people took unleavened bread from Egypt. It was cold, like a corpse, and was bread entirely lacking leaven. The synagogue received in veils the unleavened bread, at the time of your passover. The church, in a new veil, received the leaven of God. Mary was as a veil and our Lord hot leaven. It is a heat without death because divinity is without death.59 Like the narrative poems of Robert Frost, Cyrillona’s simple rhythms carry a simple but powerful story.

Isaac of Antioch (5th C.) has nearly two hundred Verse Homilies attributed to him.60 And as far as I have seen, the whole corpus is written in the “Ephremic” verse.61 Moreover, many of his homilies survive under the title On Reproof. I have surveyed short passages from many of these homilies and have found that the meter (with few exceptions) favors a duple verse form

(7 + 7 / 7 + 7). The following example, translated from On Reproof and Falsehood, shows clearly this duple verse structure:

57 On the dating of Cyrillona, see Carl W. Griffin, “Cyrillona: A Critical Study and Commentary” (Ph.D. diss., CUA, 2011), 43-73. On Cyrillona’s meter, see ibid, 85. 58 Ibid. 59 On the Institution of the Eucharist, 55-66. Translation from Griffin, “Cyrillona,” 418. Griffin’s translations stand out as some of the most successful translations of Syriac verse! His simplicity of diction and style reflect the rhythms of the Syriac remarkably well. 60 See Edward G. Mathews, Jr. “The Works Attributed to Isaac of Antioch: A[nother] Preliminary Checklist,” Hugoye 6.1 (2009): 51-76, https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/article/HV6N1Mathews. 61 Translating and studying the corpus attributed to Isaac of Antioch would be more than a life time of scholarship. But many hands can make the work light!

Mammon is highly loved and he loves those who obtain him. Thus, they abandoned truth and ran after Mammon. The poor man who speaks truth is highly chided by a ruler. The wealthy man proclaims falsehood and everyone shouts his praise. They took the beatitude of the poor, of which our Lord spoke in the gospel, and gave it all to the rich, for none believe in future things.62 Isaac of Antioch conveys a simple but challenging spirituality through somewhat pedestrian verse.63

The pastor-poet Narsai († ca. 503) favored doubled dodecasyllabic verse (4+4+4/4+4+4).

However, twelve homilies attributed to him are versed according to the “Ephremic” meter.64

One of these bears the title On Reproof. Without variation, this homily follows a rigid duple verse structure (7 + 7/7 + 7).65 The reproof begins:

Mortal nature is [too] weak to approach perfection, for flesh and blood cannot inherit the life to come. The inclination of its thought is set upon evil from the start. And whenever its will desires the good, its inclination leads it to evil [deeds].

62 Mathews #64 (Bedjan #31), lines 66-71. Translated from Paulus Bedjan, Homiliae S. Isaaci Syri Antiocheni, Vol. 1 (Paris: Harrassowitz, 1905): 390. 63 I am fully aware that my method of inquiry has not allowed me to savor the homilies as an integral whole. Thus, I am prepared to reassess the attribution “pedestrian.” 64 Macomber #’s 15, 22, 26, 30, 34, 36, 49, 53, 56, 62, 72, and 81. William Macomber, “The Manuscripts of the Metrical Homilies of Narsai,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 39 (1973): 275-306. 65 The verse at lines 425-6 is an exception in that it has no pair. However, the present author posits a lacuna in the received text.

Although there is placed in its nature two opposing thoughts, its inclination overcomes its nature and leads it to enticements.66 Unlike Ephrem, who seems to revel in the shock of a twist, Narsai’s homilies tend to have sober- minded, academic beauty to them. His verse is rigid, but it does not grow tiresome. For his piercing intellect engages his audience with wonderful imagery and careful Biblical expositions.

The final passage is an outlier in time and form. ʿAbdīshōʿ bar Brīkā (†1318), a bishop and metropolitan of the Church of the East, experimented extensively with Syriac forms.67 For example, he wrote a mēmrā with red and black ink.68 If the reader reads both the red and black ink, the verse is “Ephremic” (i.e. heptasyllabic). Yet, if only the black ink is read, then it is the verse of Narsai and Balai (i.e. dodecasyllabic).69 Abdisho wrote another mēmrā, in which every word contained a semkath, but no word contained a ṣāde or shīn.70 His verse is brilliant, but little of that brilliance lends itself to translation.

His mēmrē are typically heptasyllabic and follow a complex rhyme scheme. The following is from the opening of Mēmrē Four, On Wisdom of The Book of the Paradise of Eden.

The translation does not does not attempt to convey the rhyme scheme, since the focus is upon meter and rhythm. Here, the heptasyllabic verse has lost the fourteen-syllable structure and has taken on something of a stanzaic form containing 7 + 7 + 7 + 7 syllables.

On the lovely theme of wisdom are (set) contemplation and seeking for a man of repute, one with sense and goodness.

66 Macomber # 15, lines 1-12. Translated from Alphonsi D. Mingana, Narsai Doctoris Syri Homiliae et Carmina, v.1 (Mosul: Typis Fratrum Praedicatorum, 1912), 149. 67 Perhaps, he was (directly or indirectly) influenced by Arabic adab. 68 H. Gismondi, Ebed-Iesu Sobensis Carmina Selecta ex Libro Paradisus Eden (Beirut: Typographia PP. Soc. Iesu, 1888), 18-26. 69 Technically, the meter for both inks is 3+4/3+4. And the dodecasyllabic verse removes a syllable from the three- syllable group to achieve 2+4+2+4 per hemistich (and not Narsai’s 4+4+4). It is ingenious none the less. 70 Ibid, 91-99.

Oh! how it comforts the heart and grants comfort to the intellect and enriches the mind with a multitude of many, great riches. With the wonderful signifiers it grants, it brings the heart joy and purity and fills mankind with love and grants a great rank.71 These four examples from Cyrillona, Isaac of Antioch, Narsai, and Abdisho are included to temporarily expand the purview of this chapter and to serve as a foil for the foregoing discussion.

These examples show the various structures and rhythms available to authors writing in this meter. Nevertheless, considerable comparative work still needs to be done in Syriac poetics.

First, individual texts and authors need their own treatment.

This chapter has examined Ephrem’s “sea of homilies (memrē) on which all homilists

(ʾāmōrīn) travel.”72 And it has shown the validity of labeling these homilies as 7 + 7 heptasyllabic verse, while countering Beck’s assertion that there is no further structure.

Ephrem’s Verse Homilies, as waves on the sea, sway through alternating periods of anticipation and arrival. For Ephrem the herdsman sought to persuade and sway his flock through rhythmically swaying speech and song.

71 Ibid, 18. 72 On Holy Mar Ephrem by Mar Jacob of Serug, line 35.

Part II:

A Commentary on the Verse Homilies of Reproof

Attributed to St. Ephrem

Chapter 4 Manuscripts and Authenticity

Den Biesen’s Bibliography of Ephrem lists nine Verse Homilies of Reproof (§110-118).

Beck argues that the first three are undoubtably authentic, as he presents an edition and German translation in Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermones I.1 However, Beck is less sure about assigning authenticity to the fourth homily (§113). In short, while presenting a text and translation in Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermones II, Beck argues that the homily is not entirely un-Ephremic (more on this hedging later).2 Together, these four homilies are the object of this study.

Two further homilies Of Reproof (§116, 118), which Beck deems inauthentic, are found in his volume Nachträge zu Ephraem Syrus.3 And two more texts listed by den Biesen (§114-5) are not edited by Beck, but may be readily found in T.J. Lamy’s Sancti Ephraem Syri Hymni et

Sermones.4 And one final fragmentary text (§117) is only found in an elusive volume published by Rahmani.5 One of these homilies (§114) is also attributed in the manuscript tradition—with greater verisimilitude—to Isaac of Antioch.6 An inquiry into the authenticity of the other two texts (§115, 117) must await a future study.

1 Beck, Sermones I, (text, CSCO 305) 1-58, (translation, CSCO 306) 1-80. On authenticity, see the following section. 2 Edmund Beck, Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermones II, CSCO 311-12 (Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO (Peeters), 1970), (text) 40-55, (translation) 54-71. 3 Edmund Beck, Nachträge zu Ephraem Syrus, CSCO 363-4 (Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO (Peeters), 1975), (text) 53-9, 67-71, (translation) 71-80, 92-7. 4 T.J. Lamy, Sancti Ephraem Syri Hymni et Sermones: Quos e Codicibus Londinensibus, Parisiensibus et Oxoniensibus Descriptos Edidit, Latinitate Donavit, Variis Lectionibus Instruxit, Notis et Prolegomenis Illustravit, Vol. 4 (Mechliniae: H. Dessain, 1902), 185-208, 241-262. 5 I.E Raḥmani, Lūqātē da-mkannšīn men sāyōmē ʿattīqē, Vol. 2 (Sharfe, no further publication details), 132-3. See also den Biesen, Annotated Bibliography 140-141 (text 166). 6 See ibid, 38 (§64).

84 85

Manuscripts

A sixth century scribe skillfully copied and compiled seven mēmrē attributed to Ephrem

(one Verse Homily on Jonah and six Verse Homilies of Reproof) as well as sundry texts attributed to Isaac of Antioch and Jacob of Serugh.7 In the tenth century, Moses of Nisibis brought this manuscript to Deir al-Surian (a monastery in Wadi al-Natrun, Egypt), where the manuscript was combined with several others. Later, the first three quires (now damaged and incomplete) were acquired by the British Museum and catalogued by Wright (BM 14,573). Beck gave BM 14,573 the siglum W and used it as the base text for On Jonah and Reproof 1.8 And

W’s incomplete text of Reproof 2 was represented by Beck in the footnotes of his edition.

Recently, Sebastian Brock and Lucas van Rompay have cataloged the portion which remained at the monastery (DS 27). There, the text resumes exactly where W left off. So DS 27 begins with the conclusion of Reproof 2 and then presents Reproof 3 along with three more unpublished

Verse Homilies of Reproof. The scribe titled these homilies as the First through Sixth Mēmrē of

Reproof. And the section concludes, “completed are the six Mēmrē of Reproof of St. Ephrem.”

Deir-al Surian houses another compound manuscript containing five Homilies of Reproof attributed to Ephrem (DS 21).9 The portion containing Ephremic material was copied in the sixth or seventh century in an irregular Estrangela hand.10 These homilies are the same homilies given in the same order as BM 14,573/DS 27. Unfortunately, the text breaks off in the middle of the fifth homily. Thus, it remains unclear whether the manuscript originally contained Reproof 6 of DS 27. Nevertheless, the fact that these manuscripts group these texts together in the same

7 Except where otherwise noted, this entire paragraph merely narrates the raw data taken from Sebastian P. Brock and Lucas van Rompay, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts and Fragments in the Library of Deir al-Surian, Wadi al-Natrun (Egypt), Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 227 (Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 159-163. 8 Beck, Sermones I (text), vii. 9 Brock & Rompay, Catalogue, 112-121. 10 Ibid, 112.

86 order faintly suggests that Ephrem’s Homilies of Reproof might have had a fixed canon and order of presentation by the sixth century. Thus, I have avoided using the title Reproof 4 for text of questionable authenticity. Rather, I have reserved that title for the unedited fourth text of DS 21 and DS 27.

Alas, Beck’s erudite editions did not consult the manuscripts of the Deir al-Surian. Thus, a new edition containing all six homilies remain an Ephremic Studies desideratum. For a new edition will provide another witness or two for each text of Reproof 1-3. This will fill a gap in the text of Reproof 1, which appears to be an intriguing exposition on the moral relationship between the internal and external faculties. And DS 21 offers an alternate ending for Reproof

2.11 And a new edition will add two early witnesses to the sole twelfth century witness of Beck’s edition of Reproof 3. Furthermore, the attribution of authenticity to the first three in the series suggests the importance of a future edition and study of the other three homilies.

The text of Another of Reproof is based on two manuscripts: BM 12,176 and Vat. Sir.

464 (Beck’s F and W). Unfortunately, Beck used the sigla W to refer to two different manuscripts. This is not the same sixth century manuscript discussed above, but another dated to

1234. And the text of F has two separate scribes. The first three pages contain the homily, which concerns us. Then, at the top of Fol. 2b, a new hand begins the Teaching Songs on the

Faith; and later continues with Against Errant Doctrines; and finally concludes with a fragment of On Nisibis.12 Wright dates the second hand to the fifth or sixth century, while simply saying the first hand is “somewhat later.”13 Beck lets the vague expression stand (etwas später).14

11 Brock & Rompay, Catalogue, 119. 12 W. Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum: Acquired since the Year 1838, pt. 2 (London: Gilbert and Rivington Printers, 1870), 413. 13 Ibid. 14 Beck, Sermones II, (translation) vii.

Yet, the ductus of the first hand is distinctive, so perhaps something less vague can be said about the date of this witness. At the very least, its date can be stated simply without reference to the date of the second part. The script is Estrangela, but some letters are formed in the manner of the Serṭā script: rounded resh and dalath as well as closed waw, heth, and mim.

Several manuscripts dated to the eighth and ninth century (i.e. Berlin 26, dated 740-741; BM

14,485, dated 823-824) exhibit a general similarity of form, but differ with regard to a variety of minor details.15

On the other hand, two dated manuscripts of the late sixth century are near matches to F.

BM 17,110 (dated 599-600) exhibits a quite similar ductus, albeit with a far lighter hand. And

Hatch’s Album of Dated Syriac Manuscripts gives an example of a remarkably similar ductus

(Plate XXVI, Vat. Sir. 137, dated 564). Not only is the form of letters similar, but so also are a variety of other minutiae (angle of ascenders, relative size, where and how much a letter is pinched, etc.). Perhaps, the scribes of Vat. Sir. 137 and F are the same. Or perhaps they learned their craft from the same source. Thus, Beck and Wright’s attribution of “somewhat later” than the fifth or sixth century is generally correct. Yet, the date can be reasonably assigned (with some margin for error) to the late sixth century.

The two witnesses of Reproof α (F and W) respectively present a shorter and a longer recension. The scribe of the earlier and shorter recension seems to have had a predetermined limit of three pages. The text concludes at the end of the final column of the recto of the second folio (2r˚c) and the next text (Teaching Songs on the Faith) begins at the top of the other side of the page (2v˚a). The scribe must have committed himself to finishing by the end of page 2r, since the following page already had a text. Furthermore, the last two columns of this recension

15 The Digital Analysis of Syriac Handwriting website has been a helpful tool. http://dash.stanford.edu.

88 of Reproof α (2r˚b-c) are comparatively cramped and lack many verses present in W.16

Moreover, the largest gap (567-590) is elided with a triple period, which suggests the scribe was aware of the elision.

Clearly, the shorter recension is a result of spatial constraints. Therefore, despite the quite early date, the shorter readings ought to be rejected. Additionally, the two recensions have a fair number of other variants, which are treated in a case by case manner in the translation. In general, the readings of W are found preferable to F with regard to sense and poetics. However, whether or not the original source held the less felicitous readings of F cannot be determined from the current manuscripts. The translation merely strives to convey the best literary piece that may be derived from the two surviving witnesses.

In conclusion, the manuscript witnesses of Reproof 1-3 and α can be summarized in table form:

Beck’s Manuscript Date Description of relevant contents Sigla Catalog Name W BM 14,573 6th C. Reproof 1 (missing an unknown number of lines from the middle). Reproof 2:1-30, 267-527a. Y Vat. Sir. 117 12th C. Reproof 2 and 3 complete. P Par. Syr. 196 14th C. Reproof 2:1-1266. p Par. Syr. 189 18th C. Reproof 2:1-1266. Copied directly from P by Eusebe Renaudot (†1720). T Trin. Coll. 1506 1625 Excerpts from first half of Reproof 2. Rahm Rahmani (?) Late Reproof 1-2. Utilized by Beck in the production of 19th C. his edition. The exact origin and publication details of this volume remain elusive. See note 5 above. W Vat. Sir. 464 1234 A longer recension of Reproof α. (again) F BM 12,176 late 6th C. A shorter recension of Reproof α. DS 21 6th C. Reproof 1-5. Unedited. DS 27 6th C. Reproof 2b-6. Unedited. DS Fragment 16 9/10th C. Reproof 1:153-197. Agrees with Rahm against W. BM 17,179 11/12th C. Contains a single verse, Reproof 2: 151-2.

16 See text in Appendix B. 2r˚b begins at line 518.

Authenticity

In general, the introductions of Beck’s translation volumes furnish a sound starting block for an inquiry into Ephremic authorship. And the second chapter of Joseph Melki’s Bilan is the natural second stop in this inquiry.17 For he does an admirable job gathering together and summarizing the state of research at the time of publication. However, nearly four decades have passed since Melki’s Bilan. And now the topic of Ephremic authenticity is scattered in assorted studies, waiting to be gathered. Thus, the time is ripe for a new review of the state of authorship inquiry.

In the case of the madrāšē, Beck and Melki’s arguments are sometimes weakened by treating the complete cycle as the object of enquiry. Nevertheless, their criteria remain helpful.18

And when it comes to the mēmrē, Beck and Melki consider each homily individually. And the present author generally agrees with their assessment of authenticity as regards the Verse

Homilies of Reproof.

Beck argues that Ephremic authorship may be unequivocally (eindeutig) assigned to the unquestionably (zweifellos) authentic first homily.19 He discerns numerous parallels with other late Nisibene madrāšē (On Nisibis, Against Julian, and On the Resurrection 2) and mēmrē (On the Faith).20 He also discerns echoes of the historical situation, which Ephrem and his contemporaries faced as Persia threatened Nisibis anew.21 And he considers the poetic style of the homily to be comparable to the authentic songs.22

17 Melki, Bilan, 46-88. 18 See ibid, 49. 19 Beck, Sermones I, CSCO 306, vi. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid, vi-vii. 22 Ibid, vi.

Likewise, Beck argues for the authenticity of the second and third homilies on similar grounds.23 Of the second homily, he concludes that he finds no difficulty in assigning authenticity to the homily.24 And then of the third, Beck simply states, “the same also applies to the third.”25 Beck’s attribution of authenticity to the first two could hardly be more emphatic.

And the third homily only receives an attenuated assessment due to the sole late manuscript witness (Y) available to Beck.26 Adapting Beck, Melki categorizes the first two homilies as

“certainly authentic” and the third as “probably authentic.”27

The Verse Homilies of Reproof have received very little attention in academic literature.

Yet, where these homilies have been explicitly referenced, their authenticity was implied. In a cursory comment, Robert Murray alludes to Reproof 1 as a work of St. Ephrem.28 And den

Biesen illustrates Ephrem’s thought with a substantial passage from Reproof 2.29 And Griffith similarly cites both Reproof 1 and 2 as homilies of Ephrem.30 These three towering intellects cited these two homilies, because the ideas contained therein were consistent with the ideas being explicated from a variety of Ephremic texts. And one of the goals of this dissertation is to increase such scholarly engagement with these homilies.

A few details may be added to Beck’s arguments regarding the first three homilies. First, the similarity of poetic style briefly commented on by Beck has been further specified in the previous two chapters. Second, the Verse Homilies on Nicomedia preserved in Armenian are replete with parallels to all four of the homilies studied here (albeit the parallels are less

23 Ibid, vii-x. 24 Ibid, viii. 25 Ibid. 26 Ibid. 27 Melki, Bilan, 51-3, 64-5. 28 Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom, 112 (n.1). The note has a typo. The citation should read 1:530 not 1:53. 29 Den Biesen, Simple and Bold, 181. 30 Griffith, “Images of St. Ephraem,” 29-30.

91 pronounced in Reproof 3). And considering Beck’s argument, it is hardly surprising that this corpus of late Nisibene homilies has similar content. In fact, the connections are so persistent and numerous that a separate study would be required to fully appreciate the intertextuality between the two corpora.31 As such, the following commentary only specifies those connections which bear upon the interpretation of the text. Third, the commentary and translation may function as a subtle but elusive piece of evidence. For the present author is convinced that familiarity with these three homilies would remove all doubt from one familiar with Ephrem’s

Teaching Songs.

The final homily of doubtful authenticity is another matter. But first a few blatant biases need to be noted. The subject matter of revolting (abstoßende) depictions of torment (both in this life and the next) obviously made Beck quite uncomfortable and perhaps even anxious.32

The present author rather delights in these artful depictions. In fact, the vivid and horrifying poetics secure this final text as one of his favorite works of literature alongside Beowulf,

Paradise Lost, and the short stories of Flannery O’Connor. Rather than feeling uncomfortable, he is stirred with ecstasy when he reads in Heaney’s Beowulf of the retainer “spattered in blood, split open on his father’s account (2060f),” and in Milton’s Paradise Lost of the “Night-Hag… lur’d with the smell of infant blood (2:662ff),” and in O’Connor of the starkly horrifying deaths that frequently strike at the close. Most readers will either love this language or hate it. And those who love it will likely consider this homily to be one of the greatest works of literature whether or not Ephrem’s illustrious name is attached to it.

The point is that the reader’s reaction is mere sentiment and has nothing to do with the question of authenticity. The question is not whether the reader likes the tone or content, but

31 The study must be conducted by someone with experience in reading Syriac and Armenian translations of Syriac. 32 Beck, Sermones II, CSCO 312, vii-ix.

92 whether or not Ephrem would engage in this sort of language. And both Beck and Melki reluctantly admit that this so-called harsh, acerbic (hart, acerbe) language is known in Ephrem’s authentic works.33 And the notion of future judgment is also present in authentic Ephrem.34 And the only objection that they can lodge is one of degree (obviously tinged with Beck’s distaste).

Thus, they correctly concede that the author’s tone is not entirely inconsistent with authentic

Ephrem.

Beck also considers the author’s audacity (Kühnheit) in altering and reshaping Biblical narrative to be somewhat at odds with Ephrem’s typical approach.35 While Beck recognizes a certain degree of permissiveness (Freizügigkeit) in Ephrem’s exegesis, he considers that this homily exceeds those bounds.36 In particular, the homily assigns the reason for the judgment of

Sodom and Gomorrah to the mistreatment of the poor and socially subaltern by the elites of their society. Beck considers this to be a bold adaptation of the cause of judgment in the biblical narrative, which he presumes to be the prevalence of sexual sin.37 He correctly cites the association with Sodom and sexual sin in several authentic works of Ephrem (Verse Homily on the Faith 2:449ff and On Nativity 1:26).38 However, Beck seems to be unaware that the homily interprets the Biblical narrative in entirely the same way as did the prophet Ezekiel, who explains that the haughty Sodomites were judged for pampering themselves at the expense of the poor.39

Thus, Beck’s objection that the author was moved by soziale Radikalismus to stretch the

33 Ibid, viii-ix. Melki, Bilan, 64-5. And the present author wonders whether the adjectives “harsh” and “acerbic” are apt. Is it harsh to verbally fight against those who wield power when they are complicit in the destruction of the vulnerable? It seems callous to call such language “harsh.” Then again, some who read MLK’s Letter from Birmingham Jail thought the language was harsh. If the reproof is “sharp,” it is because it is “to the point.” 34 Ibid, 65. Beck, Sermones II, CSCO 312, vii. 35 Ibid, vii-viii. 36 Ibid, viii. 37 Ibid, vii. 38 Ibid. 39 Ez 16:48ff.

93 scripture in an un-Ephremic manner melts under the vehemence of Ezekiel’s prophetic voice.

For the homily’s content (and tone) is clearly in dialogue with scripture’s self-interpretation.

Beck hesitates to assign authenticity, because of the social radicalism expressed through brutal, scripture-subverting language. However, he and Melki concede that this does not constitute a convincing argument against Ephremic authorship.40 But neither do they suggest any reason to accept Ephremic authorship. The present author approaches the text with entirely opposite biases. And he finds Beck’s hesitations entirely unconvincing (especially as distilled by

Melki). Yet, still he comes to a similar elusive conclusion: the homily is not un-Ephremic.

In studies such as this, authenticity is a perennial subject. Yet, no one seems overly concerned with why the inquiry is pursued. Ink may be shaped into letters to signify the name

“Ephrem.” And that ink has a verifiable physical existence, which the historical figure no longer enjoys. And knowledge about the historical figure must ultimately derive from the existence of the ink which follows the name. Too often that gap between ink and historical figure is forgotten.

The first three Verse Homilies of Reproof have been assigned “certain authenticity.” In this context, “certainty” merely signifies that these texts may be used to help reconstruct the character of the historical figure of Ephrem and by extension religious life in fourth century

Mesopotamia. Likewise, it is sound to interpret these texts in light of other Ephremic texts and vice versa. But too often texts of uncertain authenticity are marginalized. Even though they are fruitful avenues—or is it orchards—of research. Certainly, the homily discussed above opens a window into an early Syriac poet’s pastoral concern over injustice toward the socially vulnerable. And perhaps, further research comparing this homily’s narrative of the destruction

40 Beck, Sermones II, CSCO 312, viii-ix. Melki, Bilan, 65.

94 of Sodom and Gommorah with Ephrem’s narratives of the destruction of Nicomedia will re-open the inquiry into authorship.

Chapter 5: Commentary on Reproof 1 The First Verse Homily of Reproof is an occasional sermon delivered in the midst of a very specific crisis. The reproof obliquely alludes to this crisis, but assumes the audience was well aware of their own situation. And there is no indication that Ephrem intended these allusions to remain meaningful outside of the original performative context. Likewise, there is no evidence that the text was edited at a later date to supply the missing details. Nevertheless, there are many clues running through the course of the sermon, which strongly suggest a particular historical crisis. Beck convincingly argues from internal and external evidence that this text hails from Ephrem’s late Nisibene period.1 This general date is not to be doubted, but may be further specified. Similarly, the makeup of the audience remains elusive. Yet a careful reading of the homily reveals some information about the addressees.

All the commentaries of this study are thematic rather than exhaustive line by line commentaries. But this commentary on Reproof 1 is more thorough than the following commentaries, because the interpretation depends heavily upon the reconstruction of an elusive setting. So, this chapter begins by restoring, as much as possible, the text’s audience and historical context. It is argued that this reproof is addressed primarily to youthful Covenanters facing the Persian invasion of 359.2 Then, the central themes are elucidated. As is typical,

Ephrem expresses these themes through a complex and hierarchical weave of polar pairs.3

Finally, the reception history of the homily is briefly addressed.

1 Beck, Sermones I, CSCO 306, vi-vii. 2 On Covenanters and the invasion of 359, see Chapter 1. 3 On polarities, see Chapter 3.

95 96

The Destroyed City

As Ephrem begins his sermon, he presents himself as one compelled to speak about a subject that might bore or irk (√mʾn) his audience. But he encourages them to receive his instruction nevertheless. And then he speaks of a “destroyed city” (mdīttā d-ebdat):

13 But with boredom there shrinks the mind’s large womb. 15 If boredom will retreat from speaker and hearer, 17 the word will grow and stretch out, the ear will grow and extend. 19 Let not our hearing be bored with stories about the destroyed city. As might be expected, an anagram (t/ʿ/r) bridges and connects lines 14 and 15: “mind” (tarʿītā) and “retreat” (teʿroq).4 And the presence of polar pairs is obvious (speaker::hearer, word::ear, shrink::large womb, and shrink::grow/stretch out).5 And the parallelism of lines 17 and 18 is also obvious. Thus, Ephrem’s poetic features (common in both mēmrē and madrāšē) are obvious.

But the identity of the city is not obvious. Burkitt suggests that the destroyed city is

Nisibis and identifies this mēmrā as one of the lost madrāšē On Nisibis, which (according to widespread speculation) sing of the abandonment of Nisibis to Persian control.6 Beck summarily dismisses this claim.7 For Nisibis was never destroyed and a mēmrā is not a madrāšā. Instead,

Beck’s introduction posits some city (Stadt) in the environs (Umgebung) of Nisibis.8 And then, in a footnote to his translation, Beck suggests one of the local strongholds (festen Plätze)

4 See page 50. 5 See page 44-47. 6 F. Crawford Burkitt, S. Ephraim’s Quotations from the Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1901), 25 n1. 7 Beck, Sermones I, CSCO 306, vi. 8 Ibid.

97 destroyed by the Persians, such as the fortress (ḥesnā) Anazit, which Ephrem laments in song.9

This latter supposition accounts for the word “destroyed,” but not so well for the word “city.”

Moreover, the following interpretation takes into account the whole homily as well as the

Nicomedian Homilies and the history of Ammianus Marcellinus.

Both Burkitt and Beck miss the possibility that Ephrem used this oblique phrase precisely because of its indeterminacy. That is to say, stories of destroyed cities abound. And the phrase is evocative, precisely because it allows the audience to hear multiple referents. And since

Ephrem frequently plants his thought in a fertile semantic field where multiple meanings may flourish, the audience (and reader) might expect the possibility of multiple referents. Thus, before attempting to determine which city, the question should be how many cities. And a careful reading of the text suggests three destroyed cities: one historical (probably Nicomedia), one biblical (Jerusalem), and one imminent (Nisibis).10 The destruction of the historical city is emotionally present; the destruction of the biblical city carries with it a strong religious warning; and the destruction of Nisibis is an imminent crisis to be avoided.

In the fall and winter of 358/359, as the fragile peace of Rome’s Eastern front was crumbling, Ephrem preached a lengthy homiletic series on the “destroyed city” of Nicomedia.11

In fact, the phrase “destroyed city” is something of a leitmotiv that runs through the whole series.12 In the middle of the series, rumors reach Nisibis of broken peace.13 Thus, in the months leading up to the renewal of hostilities, Ephrem was constantly speaking of a destroyed city. If

Ephrem’s Homily of Reproof followed close behind the Nicomedian series (as I suggest), then

9 Ibid, 1. And Renoux follows Beck. See Renoux, Mēmrē Sur Nicomédie, xxii. 10 On the historical city, see lines 20-40. On the biblical city, see lines 51-8, 280-349. On Nisibis, passim, but explicitly addressed in line 354. 11 See Chapter 1. 12 Allusions abound, but the ville détruite is explicitly mentioned in Nic 1:17; 7:1, 191, 231; 8:284, 839; and 11:1. 13 See Chapter 1.

98 this would explain Ephrem’s concern over boring his audience with another story of the city. In fact, if his narrative was not about Nicomedia, it is hard to imagine why Ephrem would expect his audience to be irked by an account of fresh news.

After this opening plea for attention, Ephrem briefly recounts the sins and judgment of that city (20-41). His list of sins contains those, which are often reproved in his Homilies on

Nicomedia (jealousy, envy, and especially ostentation).14 But the selection of sins itself is likely guided by the present homily’s rhetorical goals. And the tale does not convey new information, but connects a customized list to a series of poetically apt judgments. Thus, the details are not intended to convey bare facts, but an emotive verbal icon of divine judgment with an ardent warning. Certainly, the description of cold corpses in a cold city does not fit with the summer setting of Nicomedia’s earthquake. But perhaps, Ephrem adapted the description to heighten the poetic parallelism. Nevertheless, the description of smothered bodies echoes the same description scattered throughout the Nicomedian Homilies.15

In this narrative, one verse needs special treatment for it contains two interrelated interpretive difficulties that problematize a potentially useful passage with regard to context:

37 A little while ago, it was smoldering and when Wrath looked on it, it was quenched. First, the several feminine, singular antecedents (represented in the translation by “it”) are ambiguous. The antecedent could be “desire” (reggtā) mentioned in the previous line or the

“city” implicit throughout the passage, but most recently expressed in line 25. I strongly prefer reading “city” as the antecedent, since it is the implied topic throughout. Second, the phrase “a little while ago” (qdām qallīl) can imply close temporal proximity between the smoldering and the quenching or close proximity between sermon delivery and the city’s smoldering. I slightly

14 See Renoux, Mēmrē sur Nicomédie, xxxiv. 15 Nico 3:89, 292; 5:105f, 193f; 7:87, 203; 8:377, 709ff. And many others.

99 prefer the latter interpretation, because it fits with the temporal proximity suggested by the passage’s urgency. In this case, the sermon would date to shortly after the destruction of that city. However, the ambiguity suggests that this verse should not be pressed too far. If this verse were the only evidence, it would be rather weak evidence. However, when read together with the other evidence, it lends a small degree of weight to the argument that this homily closely follows the Nicomedian homilies.

The description of the recently destroyed city constantly hints at the crisis facing Nisibis and warns against her impending destruction. The similarity drawn between the sins of the two cities reaches a crescendo as the narrative focuses on gaudy and ostentatious fashion (39-52).

Meanwhile, the biblical city is subtly worked into this narrative. At first, the auditor is not likely to grasp the connection, but soon Ephrem makes it explicit:

51 The stylish sandal was too heavy for that mountain laden land. 53 The mountains were not as heavy for it as that light sandal which was upon it. 55 The prophet ignored all sorts of adornments and only reproved the sandal: 57 “On behalf of an unclean sandal, they sold the righteous for silver.” The prophet is Amos, who is warning of Jerusalem’s ostentation and her impending doom.16

However, before Jerusalem is specified, Ephrem employs a phrase evocative in its bifurcating polyvalence: “that mountain laden land” (l-hāy ʾarʿā ṭʿinat ṭūrā). Ephrem spoke this phrase to an audience, who likely had Nicomedia in mind. Certainly, the phrase aptly describes

Nicomedia, which had hills to the north and mountains across the bay to the south.17 And of

16 Am 2:6. 17 My knowledge of the topography of Nicomedia (modern Izmit, Turkey) is based on an extensive virtual tour of the region via Google Street View and geotagged photos. The mountainous landscape is breathtaking!

100 course, Jerusalem’s mountains are well-known.18 Therefore, the polyvalent phrase “mountain laden land” forms a symbolic link between these two cities, which were destroyed on behalf of sin. But the introduction of Zion brings in a new thematic element: Zion’s sin led to captivity in

Babel and Ashur (348f).

Ephrem uses the image of a sandal to seamlessly alternate between expounding biblical narrative and reproving his audience:

57 “On behalf of an unclean sandal, they sold the righteous for silver.” 59 Gaze intently upon this phrase, you who are glamorous and fashionable. …… 65 You knew the sandal’s potency, because you were armed with it. 67 The sandal which danced at the banquet severed the head of John [the Baptist]. As Zion was destroyed and led captive by a sandal, Herodias captivated her audience and destroyed the Baptist with a sandal. And the women of Nisibis were seen wearing the same sandal (59-112).

As the sermon progresses, the narrative of the recently destroyed city fades to the background. And the association between Zion and Nisibis is reinforced. The prophet Isaiah cries out a warning shaped into isosyllabic verse (280ff).19 And his voice intermingles with

Ephrem’s adding prophetic weight to the reproof. Both cities had similar sins depicted with a dancing sandal. Zion did not repent and was led captive. And now, the same threat faces

Nisibis:

346 The Good One made [Zion] loathsome in captivity, so they might become adorned for him with remorse 348 in Babel and Ashur, which are our near neighbors.

18 Cf. Ps 125. 19 Ephrem follows Is 3:16ff.

101

350 These [nations] got up, went out, and lead captive the daughters of Zion because they acted wickedly. 352 If they came and lead captive from afar, how much more will they lead captive from nearby! 354 O Nisibis, rebuke your daughters, for Zion did not rebuke her daughters. This passage implies an impeding captivity within the region now ruled by the Sassanian

Persians. Later Ephrem proclaims:

460 Even if there had been no battle, their adornments would awaken battles. 462 Now that captivity is at the gate, what will happen to us? The translation of this passage hides an interpretive difficulty with line 462 (hāšā d-šebyā ʿal tarʿā). I am reading ʿal as a preposition (at, upon, against, next to). However, the grammar and immediate context could also support reading ʿal as a verb (to enter). Thus, the line would read,

“now that captivity has entered the gate.” While this rendering is not grammatically impossible, the Persians are not known to have entered Nisibis until after the treaty of 363.20 Thus, this reading would imply that the occasion of the sermon was the transfer of Nisibis. While this interpretation fits many other contextual clues, it does not fit them as well as the context implied by the reading captivity is at the gate.

And the Persian campaign of 359, outlined in Chapter 1, fits the context remarkably well.

In both cases, Nisibis faced a Persian force at the gate, which resulted in trepidation within the city. And in 359, the main Persian force never directly threatened Nisibis. According to

Ammianus Marcellinus, praedatores and vastatores threatened Nisibis.21 Compared to that account, Ephrem’s abstract description of the enemy force (i.e. captivity) seems particularly apt

20 See Chapter 1. 21 See Chapter 1.

102

(though not identical). Unfortunately, the historical record is all but silent on Persian activity near Nisibis between 360 and the treaty of 363. As such, no alternative context presents itself.

Thus, the occasion of praedatores encircling Nisibis in 359 appears to be the most likely context for this sermon. Unlike Burkitt and Beck, I discern (not one, but) three destroyed cities: one biblical, one recent, and one impending. These cities were swaggering with showy pageantry and faced judgment. Nicomedia, with its connection to the crown, was full of extravagant ornamentations.22 And Zion was often reproved by her prophets for her gaudy ostentation. And Ephrem, with biblically intoned speech, urges Nisibis to reprove her daughters for their frenzied-fashion lest they be destroyed.

Audience: Station and Gender

A careful reading of the Syriac text offers several clues about the audience (or at least the addressees). This homily reproves men and women separately for separate sins. And occasionally (and significantly) Ephrem includes himself and reproves both men and women by use of the first-person plural. As Beck previously pointed out, the use of “we” language in this sermon is significant.23 The gender of the addressees is often indicated by the Syriac verbs and pronouns, which are inflected according to person, number, and gender. Unfortunately, the

English translation frequently hides the Syriac gender behind a common pronoun (they, you, etc).

A superficial reading of the homily reveals that women are frequently reproved for an obsession with fashion and ornamentation. However, a more careful reading suggests that at least some of the women addressed held a particular station within the community. Ephrem knew his audience in a way that we cannot. Thus, he does not explicitly mention their station.

22 Renoux, Mēmrē sur Nicomédie, xxxiv. 23 Beck, Sermones I, CSCO 306, vii.

103

For his sermon never accommodates the curiosity of a secondary audience. However, the reader may find hints, which suggest likely addressees.

The audience is first addressed as “we/us (19-28).” And in that context, it would seem that Ephrem is addressing the city (or rather its inhabitants). And perhaps, the audience before him was the congregation of the Nisibene church. Yet, Ephrem soon narrows his focus (105-

120), as he addresses extravagant women (gayātā), who are of the flock (d-ʿānā). After reproving the ewes (121), Ephrem returns to inclusive “we” language to state that “creation threatens us.” Again, this inclusive language appears to be Nisibis as a whole, to whom Ephrem gives an impassioned plea for communal penance (125-164).

Then the communal plea turns to a passage filled with masculine, singular imperatives

(165-222).24 This language could be indicative of a general audience inclusive of men and women or specifically male addressees. While the context seems general enough to suggest the former, the latter cannot be ruled out. Regardless, these commands urge a (grammatically) masculine audience to moderation in clothing and behavior. Thus, the homily as a whole seeks to persuade both men and women in his audience to return to simplicity (sumʿālā) and moderation. Then, after a theological excursus on the relationship between internal and external faculties (223-279), Ephrem returns with prophetic force to his reproof of the Nisibene women.

For just as Zion was destroyed on behalf of her fashionable women, so also will Nisibis be destroyed (280-355). Thus, Nisibis-personified is urged to “rebuke her daughters (354f).” Yet it is not entirely clear how Ephrem intended this rebuke to be effected in the community.

24 Perhaps, the section continues, but a gap interrupts Beck’s manuscript at line 222. For a discussion of the manuscripts, see Chapter 4.

104

Ephrem further specifies the station of the women of his reproof in lines 356-389. Beck identifies the women of this passage as Daughters of the Covenant.25 This assessment seems correct. However, I prefer speak of the addressees as the female leaders and luminaries of the

Nisibene church, many of whom were Daughters of the Covenant. This hedging allows for other avenues of spirituality and leadership, which might be obscured by the paucity of our sources.

Ephrem speaks to Nisibis about her daughters, who had once dedicated themselves to a simple lifestyle in service of the church, but now had abandoned that dedication with zest:

358 See! Your virgins (btūlātek) are brazen! See! Your chaste women (nakpātek) are audacious!

Their sexual renunciation suggests that Ephrem is addressing Covenanters. But in his estimation, their clothing does not match their station.

Then, Ephrem criticizes “our chaste women” (nakpātan), perhaps indicating that he speaks on the authority of his station as a fellow Covenanter:26

362 Women going to a banquet are not as fashionable as our chaste women. 364 They were in simplicity of clothing before they came to discipleship. 366 After they had become disciples, they became adorned. After they had become chaste, they became glamorous. 368 Virgins became chaste women, cloistered in chambers. …… 374 But they chose the church instead of a mother and teachers instead of fathers. 376 With this pretense they began. With this pact they did not continue. ……

25 He even translates nakpātā as Töchter des Bundes. See his translation notes for lines 359, 367, and 457. 26 See previous note. Perhaps, Ephrem’s plural bespeaks his fellow citizens rather than his fellow Covenanters. Yet, that interpretation seems weaker than the context allows.

105

380 Before they came to the yoke, they were kept under protection. 382 But now under a nominal yoke, their head has escaped the [real] yoke. 384 They approached discipleship, order, reading, and doctrine.

Along with the vows of sexual renunciation, the language of pact (tanway), yoke (nīrā), discipleship (tulmādā), and doctrinal instruction (qeryānā and yullpānā) are all indicative of the

Covenanters.

But these women were laying aside their former ascetic lifestyle and taking up ostentatious behaviors. Although, it is not entirely clear whether these church leaders were the same women as addressed previously. The leaders’ actions might have encouraged a general trend among the citizenship, which Ephrem reproved first. Or perhaps, the interpretation of the previous passages should be narrowed in light of this passage. Thus, throughout the homily women are addressed. Yet, it is not certain whether this address should be interpreted as

Nisibene women in general or specifically lapsed (or lapsing) Daughters of the Covenant.

When Ephrem turns his attention back to the men (394-419), he seems to be speaking to the Sons of the Covenant—or at the very least, those who aspired to be leaders. With a reproof that is reminiscent of the sixth Homily on the Faith, Ephrem criticizes those men who prematurely sought titles and teaching positions within the church to increase their own honor.27

Their ambition bypassed proper training and proper church order. And Ephrem accuses them of using their station to further their greed and lust for power (410-415).

In addition to these men who sought titles, another group of men abandoned the responsibilities of their station (468-529). For flock owners in the region had begun to abandon their sheep (466-470). And Ephrem’s peers and fellow Covenanters, the shepherds (rāʿawwātā)

27 SdF 6:219-222, 249-250, 183-6.

106 and herdsmen (ʿallānē) of God’s spiritual flock, abandoned their charges and went outside of

Nisibis to start caring for flocks of animals.28 And it seems likely that the animals were abandoned due to a fear of invaders. But Ephrem was more concerned for the flock of souls:

482 The flock of chaste men and women, who is inspecting its numbering? …… 486 That flock is guarding itself from the wolves encircling them. …… 490 As for the Messiah’s ewes, who is caring for and arranging [them]? …… 500 But, we have neglected souls; we have become slaves to domestic animals. 502 Who will not tear his garment on account of this great atrocity?

Ephrem was a herdsman of the Messiah’s ewes.29 His spiritual care and guidance for women is evident throughout his works.30 And he was also part of the chaste flock of Covenanters.31

Thus, there is every reason to believe that this reproof is personal. The flock, to which he was fastidiously dedicated, was abandoned by his peers. And his grief is evident.

Ephrem’s beloved city was facing a foreign threat, while the church lacked proper leadership. Thus, the military crisis was concurrent with a crisis of church order. Ephrem notices that some leaders were grossly unqualified both in terms of experience and temperament.

For the youthfulness of the audience becomes a central topic late in the homily (548ff).

Meanwhile, the experienced and mature leaders were leaving the city and abandoning the fold.

Ephrem sometimes reproves the men and women separately and sometimes together. And while

28 The plurality of “shepherds” argues against a facile identification of the term with the term “bishop.” 29 See Chapter 1. 30 See Chapter 2. 31 See Chapter 1.

107 it is possible that the whole church was present for the homily, the latter half of the reproof focuses almost exclusively upon church leaders.

This commentary strives to interpret Ephrem sympathetically. Of course, sympathy is not the only interpretive framework; it is merely the framework of this study. Nevertheless, the foregoing discussion invites reading against the grain to highlight a gap in the preceding reconstruction. If we assume for the moment that Ephrem misjudged the motives of his audience, what situation would motivate caring leaders to put on expensive jewelry and to seize abandoned flocks? Perhaps—the very same situation that faced Nisibis in 359. For maybe the leaders were well aware of the crisis and only wanted to secure food and moveable wealth to support their community in case sudden flight became necessary. This brief alternate reading is merely given to stress that the audience’s response to the reproof has not reached us.

The Peace-Captivity Cycle

Phil Botha has taught Ephrem’s readers to expect his central themes to be expressed in terms of polar relationships.32 And Reproof 1 satisfies this expectation perfectly. The homily’s central theme may be expressed in three polar pairs, which are individually developed through supporting polar pairs (peace::captivity, sin::repentance, judgment::deliverance). These six terms themselves form a cyclical pattern, which many communities follow. A period of prosperous-peace (šaynā) leads to a period of sin and excess to which God responds with judgment in the form of captivity and destruction. Then the community, in their despair, turns to repentance. God forgives their sins and delivers them to a time of peace. This may potentially restart the cycle.

32 See Chapter 2.

108

The cycle may be depicted with the following chart:

Peace/ Prosperity

Sin/ Deliverance Excess

Repentance/ Judgment Balance

Captivity/ Destruction

The thematic polar pairs are seen by drawing an imaginary line between terms across the circle’s center. And the chart’s arrows indicate a likely chain of events within a community. However,

Ephrem is not advocating a doctrine of inescapable fate. Rather, his rhetorical goal is to encourage repentance during a season of sin and excess in order to bypass the impending movement of judgment and captivity (149-152). Moreover, Ephrem advocates a sustainable and moderate spirituality that avoids excess in order to create a community that remains in a state of balance and prosperity (153ff), thereby avoiding sin-judgment-captivity-deliverance.

One of the central features of sin as expressed in this homily is excess. Likewise, repentance is marked by proper measure. Thus, the polarity sin::repentance is reinforced through a secondary polarity excess::measure. The spiritual life advocated in this homily is one of right order, balance, and proper measure. In this homily, the excess of sin is generally expressed in terms of the excess of ostentation and prideful self-expression through clothing and jewelry.

109

And this excess is set against the proper measure of repentance. For Ephrem also excludes excess in ascetic gestures, which he judges unsustainable (151ff).

Ephrem first states his rhetorical goal through the story of the destroyed city (of

Nicomedia):

25 The city was destroyed and in it was destroyed the evils which used to be concealed therein. 27 Come! Let us destroy our evils, lest we be destroyed along with our evils.

Sins (or evils) must be judged and destroyed. Nicomedia hid her sins and was destroyed by wrath. But physical destruction may be avoided by condemning sin prior to judgment. Ephrem continues emphasizing the fright of judgment and destruction to sway his audience to repent and

“destroy” their sins.

Before sin is judged and sinners led captive, a time of warning preaches lasting repentance:

149 The small frights have proclaimed that repentance is necessary— 151 not the repentance which [endures for] days, but one which [endures for] months and years.

He seems to see himself as participating in proclaiming this warning. And throughout the homily, he preaches moderation as a sustainable form of repentance which lasts for years.

And just as Isaiah and Amos warned Israel, Ephrem’s voice reinforces the frights facing his community to heighten the warning. Speaking with Isaiah’s divinely inspired voice, Ephrem recounts Isaiah’s judgment of the daughters of Zion. Ephrem adopts this prophetic vocabulary to punctuate his reproof and sway his audience to repent:

110

282 He counted and enumerated their adornments and set in balance their afflictions, 284 so that they would despise their adornments on account of the fear of their afflictions. 286 He enumerated and brought an end to their adornments, and he called for captors [to come] against them.

Zion’s sins of excess are expressed as “adornments,” which are balanced by the weight of affliction found in captivity. Thus, sin’s extravagance is balanced by the scales of judgment.

Ephrem perceives that his youthful audience was obsessed with beauty. Thus, Ephrem explicitly casts his themes in terms of beauty. He narrates what captivity did to the youthful beauty of the daughters of Zion:

316 Their bodies were [sun] burnt in captivity and their perfumes became fetid in it. 318 Their beauty was marred in it and their complexion withered and perished. …… 338 With prosperity’s adornment, they became loathsome to the lofty lover of the lowly. 340 So with captivity’s injustice, they became pleasing to the just lover of penitents. 342 With prosperity the body became radiant; with captivity the spirit became beautiful.

Here, the word translated as “prosperity” is šaynā, which may be translated quite fittingly as

“peace.” However, the word carries overtones of the positive effects of political peace upon land and city. And Ephrem is clearly employing these overtones in contrast to the negative effects of captivity. Thus, the translation employs the word “prosperity” to highlight the effects of peace.

So here the homily-spanning polarity peace::captivity (šaynā::šebyā) is explicitly stated.

During Zion’s period of prosperous-peace, the concern over outer beauty exceeded proper balance. And the lack of interior balance made the inner faculties loathsome. Thus, outer beauty became ugly to encourage inner ugliness to become beautiful. The daughters of Zion sinned by their unbalanced desire to be beautiful. So, justice sent them into captivity to restore

111 the balance and bring them inner beauty. The passage concludes with two polarities compacted into an isosyllabic parallelism. Peace is set against captivity and body against spirit; and both polarities are associated by their relationship to a homonymic pair in the semantic field of

“beauty” (√prg/√pʾy).

As the sermon progresses and the reproof of outer beauty passes its peak, the topic of inner beauty steadily increases. Thus, Ephrem’s reproof of outer beauty entirely fades from the conclusion of the sermon in favor of his commendation of an unfading inner beauty. For

Ephrem’s First Homily of Reproof does not conclude with a rebuke, but with a lengthy description of inner beauty accompanied by an encouragement to be adorned with that unfading and enduring beauty. Ephrem’s pointed reproof is tempered by his earnest desire to cultivate beautiful spiritual blossoms among his youthful audience.

Reception and the Sermo Asceticus

The sermo asceticus was a Greek sermon falsely attributed to Ephrem and addressed to a male monastic audience, whose lasting popularity is reflected through numerous translations

(Latin, Coptic, Georgian, Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic and Slavonic) and dozens of late medieval manuscripts.33 The author adopted and adapted Ephremic material attested in the Syriac tradition. In particular, the author drew heavily from Reproof 1.34 But he divorces carefully selected passages from their context and reworks them into his new sermon.35 Ephrem’s elusive audience and context is effaced. The male and female urban ascetics among Ephrem’s original audience become exclusively male ascetic monks. And all the subtle hints at a general church

33 On translations, see Suh, “From the Syriac Ephrem to the Greek Ephrem,” 230. On manuscripts, see ibid, 453. 34 Ibid, 256, table 32. 35 Ibid, 258-277.

112 audience are lost. So, also the specific historical details teased out in this chapter become an abstract, essentialized conflict.36

Ephrem’s authentic Reproof 1 remained in circulation for several hundred years. This is evidenced by the two surviving manuscripts as well as citations by Philoxenus of Mabbug

(†523).37 Yet the new sermo asceticus clearly had greater lasting appeal among the monastic milieus of the middle ages. For it successfully adapted Ephrem to a new context—that is, if success is judged by popularity. Ephrem’s original sermon appears to be an effective piece of rhetoric with undeniable artistic form at both the micro- and macro-level. However, Ephrem’s homily is not easily transferable to new contexts. For the homily merely suggests a context that was no longer applicable, while never fully satisfying the reader’s curiosity with concrete historical details. But the sermo asceticus had a broad appeal among the non-urban, male- dominated monastic communities spread across many linguistic contexts.

And if Ephrem’s text is judged simply as a poem, perhaps its literary appeal is primarily one of historical interest. However, the text is not primarily a poem, but a transcription of a homily delivered to an emotionally close audience. And once the context and audience has been established (as this chapter has done), it can be judged (not as a poem, but) as an artfully composed Verse Homily. And perhaps, after many years of obscurity, this homily can once again be read alongside the corpus of fourth century homilies.

36 See “parallel 8,” ibid, 270. 37 On manuscripts, see previous chapter. Philoxenus quotes Lines 426-9 and 452-3 in his Florilegium (#201, #202) and lines 426f and 452f in his Letter to the Monks of Senoun. See M. Brière and F. Graffin, Sancti Philoxeni episcopi Mabbugensis Dissertationes decem de Uno e Sancta Trinitate incorporato et passo: V. Appendices: I. Tractatus; II. Refutatio; III. Epistula dogmatica; IV. Florilegium., PO 41.1 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1982), 109. And André de Halleux, Philoxène de Mabbog: Lettre aux Moines de Senoun, CSCO 231-232 (Louvain: Peeters, 1963), 35:25-36.

Chapter 6: Commentary on Reproof 2 & 3 The Second and Third Verse Homilies of Reproof are cut from the same bolt of cloth.

While each has its own structure and emphases, their tone, rhythmic movements, and concerns suggest a similar moment in Ephrem’s life. As such, many passages of one could find a welcome home in the other. Thus, it will be profitable to study their themes together. For where they are similar, parallel passages may be interpreted side by side. And where they differ, the contrast may set those passages in relief.

Perhaps the greatest difference between the two homilies is their size and scope. The second homily spans nearly two thousand lines. This sublime behemoth defies simple summary as its massive form glides from reproof to reproof; seemingly no temptation facing Ephrem’s church escaped his notice. But the third homily expresses a limited set of themes through focused imagery in a fraction the length. And while there is never a simple repetition of lines, the third may be read as a narrowing of the scope and audience of the second.

Audience and Occasion

The third homily employs persistent imagery, which appears to be directed at a learned audience. In fact, most verses touch on some aspect of scribal skill. The act of writing is seen in the verbs to write (ktab), to inscribe (ršam), and to form (ṣār) letters.1 And a variety of writing media are mentioned: pens (qenyē), tablets (lūḥē), and ink (dyūtā)2 as well as scrolls, books, and documents (mgallē, kerkē, seprē, šṭārē, ktībātā).3 The importance of skillful (spīr) and accurate

1 The root √ktb spans the whole homily, while the roots √ršm and √ṣrr are primarily found in lines 407-418. 2 On pens, see lines 59-64. On tablets, see 389-398. On ink, see 354. 3 On scrolls (mgallē, kerkē), see lines 113f, 373-378. On contracts (šṭārē), see 103-116. The roots √ktb and √spr are ubiquitous. The translations of seprē in Appendix A vary according to local context.

113 114

(ḥattīt) transcription is a perennial topic;4 but sometimes even a careful scribe needs to blot out

(ʿṭā) what was written.5 And this dedication to precision is passed on through proper pedagogy

(389-424). The teacher (mallpānā, rabbā) forms a model for the student (talmīdā), who imitates

(dammī) the model.6 And the student who has “twisted a line of his text” (ptal ḥuqā da-ktībāteh) faces corporal punishment.7 Thus, through repetition and close scrutiny the budding scribe learns to emulate the skill and accuracy of the master.

Moreover, the imagery suggests that the books (seprē) are more accurately legal and mercantile ledgers. For these accounts are mathematically kept: sums are added (√swk), and calculated (√ḥšb), and properly credited (√qṣṣ).8 Memory and mental acumen are esteemed,9 whereas straying into forgetfulness and error is reckoned beneath the audience’s scribal skill.10

And Ephrem encourages the discerning (√prš) audience to consider matters carefully (√ṣdd,

√bwn).11 Thus, the preacher appears to be appealing to highly trained bookkeepers. And this imagery is developed to such a degree that the modern interpreter is faced with a dilemma: either

Ephrem’s rhetoric went amiss or his audience included a substantial number of educated scribes.

Since Ephrem’s rhetoric is generally reckoned to be sound, it is reasonable to conclude that this homily is addressed (in part) to professional bookkeepers.

Ephrem also addresses parishioners who recently lost their station (275-304). For slavery had come to some and poverty to others—or perhaps poverty led to debt-slavery. And Ephrem reminds his audience of the Lord’s self-emptying and encourages them with the promise of

4 See lines 223-250, but 235f and 247f in particular. 5 See lines 85f. 6 Incidentally, Ephrem calls the student “your son” (390), suggesting that some in the audience had families. 7 Lines 403f. 8 See lines 45-48, 121-124, 217-248. 9 See lines 119-124. 10 Depending on context, the verb from the root √ṭʿy may mean to go astray, to forget, and to err. Ephrem clusters eleven usages of the root spanning the various senses to stress the importance of avoiding scribal inaccuracy. And this rhetorical clustering could hardly be more emphatic. See lines 225-248. 11 See lines 355-364.

115 heavenly bliss. The homily does not expand upon the social situation which brought such devastating loss. Yet, the vicissitudes of life on the edge of empire would generally make professional life a high-risk gamble. And it seems that some in the Nisibene church had gambled and lost.

Our pastor-poet also advises those who sought to become shepherds and herdsmen (305-

350). Perhaps, these candidates were among his scribal audience. And to this group he suggests that remaining as a sheep is the safest path, for the herdsman is responsible for the sheep and the shepherd for the whole flock including the herdsman (313-316). He warns that the shepherd has no rest and comfort in this life, for rest and comfort would come at the expense of the flock (325-

332). And the urgency of pastoral responsibility is heightened by the preceding passage treating slavery and the loss of worldly wealth. So, Ephrem reminds his audience that it is a fearful thing to risk the flock purchased with the blood of God (345-348). Perhaps, Ephrem’s own experience as a borderland pastor-poet shaped his pointed caution.

Yet, unlike the third homily, the second homily addresses itself to the entire church.12

Thus, some would likely have been present for both homilies. For Ephrem reproves individuals of the ruling class: judges, magistrates, shepherds, herdsman, law makers, and teachers (295-

304). And he admonishes members of the mercantile class: tavern keepers, merchants, and brokers (371-400, 533-550). However, this sermon avoids technical bookkeeping vocabulary in favor of imagery that could be appreciated by his whole audience. For example, both homilies show Lady Justice with her ledgers. But Reproof 3 shows her writing in those ledgers and

Reproof 2 shows her reading.13 The imagery communicates the same idea, while taking into account the demographics of the audience.

12 This claim will become clear during the course of the chapter. 13 See Reproof 2: 585-608 and 3:39-58. See also the following section.

116

Reproof 2 offers extensive spiritual guidance to the ewes of the flock (599-778). This lengthy speech directed toward married women seems to be rooted in Ephrem’s practice of pastoral visitation—at the very least, he shows keen awareness of their internal motives. But only the record of his speech remains, not the preceding conversations. The married women were aging; their fertility was fading along with youth’s beauty (605-610). Their barrenness and changing bodies amplified their concern for the welfare and attention of their sons and husbands.

And in desperation, they were turning to divination and augury.

Ephrem reproves their syncretism, while showing empathy for their situation. And he commends properly ordered love, which sets love for God above love for spouse (655-678).

And he urges husbands to demonstrate their love by looking at their spouse’s internal beauty

(679-734). For marriage ought to cultivate internal beauty through the reproof of blemishes.

Even though Ephrem’s homily focuses on the married women, he also subtly reproves the men on two accounts: 1) Ephrem should not have to reprove married women, since Christian spouses should cultivate a habit of mutual reproof. 2) The husband’s gaze was wrongly focused on external decline, rather than on internal maturity. Thus, Ephrem attempts to reach to the heart of marital relationship problems in his church.

In addition to these marital tensions, Ephrem addresses conflict between those committed to marital partnership and intimacy (šawtāpūtā) and those pledged to holy-celibacy (qaddīšūtā), who renounced the pleasures and duties of their former married life in service of the Holy One

(1211-1344).14 Ephrem retells the biblical narrative of Miriam’s quarrel (√gry) with Moses.15 In his version of the narrative, the word šawtāpūtā simultaneously stands in for Miriam and those committed to married life. Likewise, qaddīšūtā is both Moses and the celibates. Thus, Ephrem

14 See Chapter 1. 15 See Numbers 12. See especially Naomi Koltun-Fromm, Hermeneutics of Holiness: Ancient Jewish and Christian Notions of Sexuality and Religious Community (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2010), 175-209.

117 tells how marriage mocked (mayyqat) celibacy and became leprous in order to learn about her rival’s exalted rank (1319-1344). It is not clear what form the mockery took, but it seems to have disturbed the unity of the community (1279-1314). In addition to this lengthy passage, the strife is also suggested by Ephrem’s emphatic affirmation of the validity of both lifestyles (909-

912, 921-932). Perhaps, the tensions between married couples fed into the tensions between ascetics and non-ascetics. Whatever the situation, it is clear that Ephrem was addressing a mixed community.

At this point, it will be beneficial to compare Ephrem’s interaction with his audience in the first three homilies. In all three homilies, Ephrem speaks with authority. He presents himself as a spiritual guide, whose advice is proclaimed with quasi-prophetic overtones. While Reproof

2 and 3 are both poignant and tender, they maintain some degree of emotional distance between preaching pastor and listening flock. For their reproof is also abstract and comparatively distant.

But Reproof 1 has no emotional distance; the preaching is raw, unfiltered, and personal.

****

Very little may be said about the occasion which prompted Reproof 2 and 3. Yet, their congruence of tone and concern suggests a similar timeframe. Three passages from Reproof 2 hint at the instability of border life without defining a specific date. 1) Ephrem encourages his audience that even if the Evil One approaches as a captor (šabbāyā) like Sennacherub and

Nebuchadnezzar, God will grant the church strength to stand against the attack (1915-1930).

Thus, the work of the Evil One is depicted as a foreign invader. Yet the conditional language suggests that the threat is currently dormant. Moreover, the imagery could indicate a spiritual attack, rather than a physical attack. 2) Ephrem speaks of a pillager (bāzōzā) lifting his head

(345f). But again, the context intimates a spiritual attack. 3) He also encourages his audience to

118 repent, because “wrath is racing through the land.”16 This line might allude to a Persian threat.

But no other textual evidence supports that claim. Thus, without textual reinforcement this line merely hints at Ephrem’s ministry on the edge of Roman power.

Reproof 3 has even fewer clues. As previously discussed, the homily addresses those who suddenly fell from their station. Perhaps—but by no means certain—this happened as a result of disruptions along the border. Yet, this vague allusion to instability fits anywhere within

Ephrem’s adult life in Nisibis. So, for both homilies, a late Nisibene date presents itself. But the crisis of 359 does not fit the generally relaxed tone. And the meager evidence, does not allow an earlier date to be ruled out, nor can it preclude a later Edessan setting. Thus, the precise context of these two Homilies of Reproof have not been firmly established.

Justice and Judgment

Ephrem depicts Justice as a personal being, who presents each person’s case directly before God. Action is attributed to her: making (√ʿbd), forging (√ḥšl), reading (√qry), writing

(√ktb), and prosecuting cases (√qbl, √qṭrg).17 In fact, Ephrem specifically denies her inactivity,

“Do not think that Justice is entirely still (mešlā šālyā) at this time.”18 Perhaps, this is a poetic personification of some aspect of God’s character, which dramatizes and temporalizes that which is intrinsically timeless for rhetorical effect. Or maybe, the personal nature of Justice bespeaks an underlying feature of reality. This commentary leaves this line of inquiry open, while suggesting a future study of justice across a larger corpus of early Syriac literature.

16 Line 87. 17 See Reproof 2:513-524, 583-590; 3:29-46, 133-138. Justice is also seen roaring (2:143-146) and protecting as a strong fortress (2:1897f), but this set of imagery is not part of the characterization of Lady-Justice. 18 See Reproof 3:5f, 37f.

119

Ephrem establishes a polar relationship between justice (kēnūtā) and injustice

(ʿawwālūtā, ʿālōbūtā).19 The translation pair “justice/injustice” highlights the antithetical relationship underlying the Syriac terms. Yet, more should be said about all three terms. The personification of kēnūtā aids the explication of the term. Kēnūtā keeps exact ledgers; and she presents her ledgers before the judge (3:29-46). She establishes standard weights and measures; and she measures all against her standard (2:513-518). And she is the source of law and law courts as well as the church (2:519-522). Kēnūtā is proper balance and measure; it is right side up and well ordered (2:417ff). Thus, the English word “justice” captures the sense of kēnūtā remarkably well.

Ephrem sets ʿawwālūtā and ʿālōbūtā opposite “justice,” thereby drawing their senses closer together. These terms are not synonyms, but they do share the large semantic field containing words of moral wrongdoing. And they gain added similarity through their mutual antithesis to “justice.” The word ʿawwālūtā is a general term of wrongdoing commonly used in

Syriac moral discourse, where it may be accurately translated as iniquity or wrongdoing.20

However, Ephrem frequently draws a connection between a wrong act and the harm (nekyānā) that the act has upon the community.21 For Ephrem does not subscribe to the notion of a victimless sin. For him, all wrongdoing is properly a breach of justice.

The abstract noun ʿālōbūtā is a particular type of wrongdoing, which may be translated as

“oppression.” This root (√ʿlb) may indicate situations of wrongful taking as well as domineering behaviors. Oppressors (ʿālōbē) use a position of power to take from the oppressed (ʿlībē).22 This is the sense commonly reproved in moral discourse. However, the verb ʿlab may also be found

19 The polarity is most clearly stated in Reproof 2:143-146. 20 See Reproof 1:340f; 2:589-606; 3:473f, 499f; α:1f, 41f. 21 The harm associated with sin is a recurring theme in the Homilies of Reproof. See Reproof 1:87f, 113-116; 2:61f, 135f, 241-244. 22 See Reproof 3:191-198.

120 with neutral connotations, where it simply means to surpass, to exceed, to have an upper hand, to gain ascendency, and to predominate. Thus, one length may be said to surpass (ʿlab) another.23 The lexica note the neutral sense for the verb, but are silent on this sense as regards the abstract noun.

But Ephrem takes the neutral sense, invests it with positive connotations, and applies these newfound connotations to the abstract noun. Then, Ephrem rhythmically sways back and forth between the positive and negative connotations. And the translator must either obscure

Ephrem’s word play beneath multiple translations or find a word that can suggest both senses.

Where Ephrem employs this word play, the present study reflects the bivalence with the English lexemes to dominate and domination. While these words do not perfectly capture every nuance, this translation appears to be the least bad of the available options.

Ephrem says that night and day mutually dominate each other (ʿālbīn la-ḥdādē).24 But their course is measured (√kwl) and harmonious (√ʾwy), therefore they are just (kēnīn) despite their domination (ʿālōbūtā).25 In fact, Ephrem goes so far as to say, “In all that domination, all justice is cached.”26 For day gains the upper hand to give strength to night. And night plunders

(bāʾez) day to return the gift (2:447f). And in all this domination, nature teaches humanity that the purpose of gaining ascendency is give strength back to the community.27

Ephrem negatively compares his community with the luminaries:

23 The same example is provided in Sok, CAL, and JPS. CAL lists the neutral sense as a metaphorical extension of the primary sense, to oppress. Ephrem’s usage certainly elicits further research. 24 Reproof 2:445f. 25 Reproof 2:437-490. 26 Reproof 2:449f. 27 See Reproof 2:435-8, 447-54, 459-466.

121

2:479 In one respect, we were like those brothers of justice (kēnūtā)— 2:481 their domination (ʿālōbūthon) was pleasing to us; their justice (kēnūthon) was insipid to us. 2:483 When they dominated, they made restitution, but when we dominated, we dominated again.

Parallel structure compacts this polarity into a hard-hitting reproof. Ephrem shows that justice is not naturally opposed to ʿālōbūtā. There should not be antithetical tension, but mutual aid between the two. But this polar opposition is founded through the topsy-turvydom of human ambition and greed (2:491-510).

So Ephrem introduces Lady-Justice, who works against the tipped scales of human injustice by establishing counterweights. Justice’s creates (√ʿbd) counterweights that both balance and replace human weights:

513 Justice (kēnūtā) made measures (kaylē), lest domination (ʿālōbūtā) should plunder (tebboz). 515 She made weights as well, lest cupidity be perpetrated. 517 She made the kor within which fraud and guile are exposed. 519 She made law and the court of law, so injustice (ʿawlā) would be indicted there. 521 She made the church, so within her all splendor would dwell.

Reproof 2 explicitly establishes a polar opposition between humanity’s injustice (ʿawwālūtā and

ʿālōbūtā) and God’s justice. And here Justice personally comes to set right the misbalance of injustice. For God’s steady-standing (√tqn) creation has been upturned (√hpk) by human action

(425-434). And Justice acts to return God’s order (ṭakksā) to nature. Thus, frequently, Reproof

2 aims at restoring justice on earth as it is in heaven.

In Reproof 3, the polarity lurks latent; it is present, but not frequently explicit. When the polarity comes to the fore, it is to defend Justice from the accusation of being unjust (3f, 29f).

And in this homily she comes, not so much to set things right, as to bring an airtight case against

122 the unjust (29-46). And Ephrem warns his audience that Justice has a keen eye and keeps precise ledgers (133-138). And his audience of bookkeepers understood that fire hid within her scrolls

(113f). And they were reminded that the Knower of All keeps a perfect record of all deeds (117-

126). And they were cautioned that “the punisher is pitiless on the last day of judgment.”28

Ephrem uses fear to motivate his audience to repent, lest their penance be found in Gehenna

(195-200). Frequently, the focus of Reproof 3 is on justice and judgment in the age to come.

Reproof 2 and 3 depict Lady-Justice and judgment with consistent imagery, but each homily has its own rhetorical goals. The previous chapter studied how Reproof 1 warns of impending judgment in this life. And Reproof 2 warns against disordering God’s work, but focuses on God’s ability to set things right. Thus, the three Verse Homilies of Reproof studied each deploy variations on the theme of justice and judgment. And I suspect that the three unpublished Verse Homilies of Reproof found in the Deir al-Surian will further develop the theme.

God::Man::Satan

In Ephrem studies, it is commonplace to speak of an ontological chasm between Creator and creation.29 Ephrem taught that God’s non-contingent and self-existent Being (ʾītyā) cannot be investigated by creation, whose existence is derivative by definition.30 Botha posits that this fundamental polarity (Creator::creation) spans his entire corpus—sometimes working implicitly in the background, other times explicitly in the foreground.31 And it certainly runs through

Ephrem’s Verse Homilies of Reproof.

28 Reproof 3:79f. 29 See the classical statement in Brock, Luminous Eye, 26-7. See also Griffith, Faith Adoring the Mystery, 21-24. 30 Cf. HdF 55. 31 See especially, Phil J. Botha, “The Poet as Preacher: St. Ephrem the Syrian’s Hymn De Virginitate XXXI as a Coherent, Asthetic, and Persuasive Poetic Discourse,” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 19 (2008): 55.

123

But these homilies are not primarily theological expressions, but moral injunctions.

Therefore, instead of the ontological gap between Creator and creation, Ephrem stresses a moral gap between God and mankind. This primary polarity (God::Man) is supported and reinforced through several dependent polarities: the just (√kwn) God ordered (√ṭks) creation and set it right-side up (√tqn), but Man’s injustice (√ʿwl) disorders (√blbl) creation and has turned it upside down (√hpk).32 This network of polarities is explicitly and thoroughly developed in Reproof 2.

And it remains an implicit theme throughout the other two homilies.

Ephrem introduces a secondary polarity (Satan::Man). The work of Satan is all but absent in Reproof 1.33 And Reproof 3, introduces the Evil One as a minor character whose action is briefly narrated in just sixteen lines (471-480, 505-510), where Ephrem succinctly depicts him as a teacher, a seed-sower, a hunter, a loan shark, an overseer, a thief, and a robber. But Reproof

2 devotes over two hundred lines to developing the character of the Evil One, who approaches individuals as a teacher, guide, and gift giver. And he carefully varies his temptations to match the desires of the individual (809-822).

The Evil One appears cunning, since he is constantly setting custom-made traps (829-

842). But it turns out that the traps only appear custom-made, since each person makes their own trap. The adversary receives a trap and then shows a person how to set it up and walk into it

(853-6). Similarly, Satan binds with powerful chains. But the chains gain their power from the human will (901-8). For just as Moses’ freewill lent its power to the Amalekites when his arms fell, so also the individual lends power to Satan whenever he wishes (881-894).34 Thus, the apparent power and cunning of the Evil One derives from the actual power and cunning of the human will. For human willing reflects God’s willing. So just as God’s willing is an act, so also

32 See Reproof 2:419-436. 33 Although, Cf. lines 344-347 for the polarity Good One::Evil One. 34 Cf. Ex 17:11ff.

124 does God accept the human willing as an act (1845-8). Thus, Reproof 2 argues at length against moral theories based in Good-Evil dualism.35 Ephrem rejects that the Good One and the Evil

One are equal opposites. Moreover, in this moral discourse, Ephrem emphatically denies that the

Evil One has any native power over human willing. Rather, the human will chooses between good and evil.36

In addition to the primary and secondary polarities, Ephrem advances a tertiary polarity

(Satan::God). Again, this is not a dualist opposition of warring equal beings. Rather, Satan’s opposition to God consists in a mockery of God’s relationship to man:

2:805 Satan looked at God who freely disperses his treasures. 2:807 The Evil One opened his treasury; he freely scattered his possessions.

Both God and Satan disperse free gifts to humanity. Ephrem frequently returns to this seemingly divine and beneficent action of Satan to show that the gifts are perverse imitations and counterfeits. Perhaps, the most grotesque image of this perverse gift-giving may be seen in

Satan’s response to God’s gift of the “pure bed of marital-intimacy” (ʿarsā dkītā d-zuwwāgā).37

For Satan comes and scatters his seed (zraʿ) on the bed, leaving it plastered (ṭpīlā) with defilement (ṭāmʿūtā).38 Satan’s imitation of intimacy is revolting. And with that image, Ephrem causes the audience to recoil from association with Satan.

35 Ephrem counters dualism in a theological context in the Teaching Songs against Errant Doctrines. See Sidney H. Griffith, “‘The Thorn among the Tares’: Mani and Manichaeism in the Works of St. Ephraem the Syrian,” Studia Patristica 35: 411, 419-421. 36 The choice between good and evil is implicit through lines 1011-1028. For Christological reasons, the preaching- poet Narsai is keen to safeguard the human will from the charge of innate evil. And in his Homily on Reproof (homily #15), he explicitly develops this theme of the will’s free choice between good and evil. See Alphonsi D. Mingana, Narsai Doctoris Syri Homiliae et Carmina, Vol. 1 (Mosul: Typis Fratrum Praedicatorum, 1912), 149-167. 37 See Reproof 2:759-62 and 771f. 38 Ibid.

125

Thus, Reproof 2 grounds its rhetorical strategy in three opposing pairs:

Satan God

Man Satan is on the left; God on the right; and mankind must choose a side (1101-1142). Satan wishes to oppose God, but cannot do so directly. So, he sets himself against godliness within humanity to increase the opposition between God and Man. This forms a double polarity

Satan::Man and Man::God. Thus, this figure may be collapsed and simply schematized as

Satan::Man::God. While this double polarity is most thoroughly developed in Reproof 2, it is an interpretive key unlocking our understanding of Ephrem’s spiritual guidance across his entire corpus.39 In Reproof 3, Ephrem contrasts God’s precise accounting with mankind’s sloppy spiritual bookkeeping, while Satan bypasses the business of moral development through criminal gain.

The rhetorical function of the double polarity is to divide humanity into two camps: the followers of Satan on the left and the followers of God on the right. This polar argumentation removes the middle ground.40 Ephrem encourages his audience to remain on the right and warns against crossing over to the left. For just a single sample of an underestimated sin is a colossal step to the left (1115-1120). With the removal of the middle ground, a single opposition emerges between Satan’s camp and God’s camp. Thus, Ephrem closes Reproof 2 with a parallelistic summary of the resulting polarity:

1965 The Messiah lives in his apostles, and the Evil One, in his disciples.

39 Cf. Phil J. Botha, “An Analysis of Ephrem the Syrian’s views on the Temptation of Christ as Exemplified in His Hymn De Virginitate XII,” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 14 (2003): 39-57. 40 See Chapter 2.

126

Speaking and Listening

The previous section examined a cornerstone of Ephrem’s moral theology. This section turns to the proper (and improper) role of speaking and listening in community life. Again, the longer sermon (Reproof 2) provides the framework for the discussion, but Reproof 3 is not silent on the subject of speech. However, the latter sermon addresses the specific concerns of its audience. Thus, that homily has a stronger emphasis on writing, education, and mental acumen than upon the proper role of the mouth and ear in church life. Nevertheless, Reproof 3 contrasts the tepid, heaved-up words of the audience with Christ’s voice, which had warned that every word would be accounted for on judgment day (47-54, Mt 12:36). And Ephrem urges his audience to show pity to their mouths, for Justice is carefully recording each word in her ledgers for that day (58f, 135-143). Furthermore, the audience was listening incorrectly. For their ears were open so wide that scripture passed from ear to ear without ever being heard (201-8). Thus,

Ephrem punctuated the sermon with occasional reminders of the importance of mouth and ear.

While Reproof 2 commends many actions and forbids many others, most of the sermon is concerned with speaking, listening, and silence. The sermon does have several conspicuously long lists, which line up every conceivable sin.41 The reproof of the mouth appears weakened by the variety of these lists. But, Ephrem uses these lists to argue that verbal sins are reckoned on par with other commonly acknowledged sins (1561f, 1679f).42 Yet, the pastor-poet does not simply guide the audience away from the cliffs of sin; he also guides the flock to the greener pastures of right action. Thus, Ephrem’s sermon pushes for the proper use of mouth and ear.

41 See Reproof 2:790-798, 809-822, 983-1004, and 1827-1840. 42 The function of several of these lists in their immediate context is to demonstrate the apparent cunning of the Evil One.

127

Through a variety of contexts, each of the acts of speaking, listening, and silence are invested with positive, negative, and neutral connotations.

Reproof and instruction are positive forms of speaking; mockery, slander, and deception are negative; and mouth, word, and speech are neutral terms. Some of the great variety of

Ephrem’s vocabulary pertaining to speech may be distilled and organized into a chart:

Positive Valence Negative Valence Neutral Valence Reproof: Mockery: Mouth: to blame, reprove, to mock, deride, joke, mouth (pūmā) admonish, correct, laugh, ridicule, revile tongue (leššānā) reproach, chastise (√mwq, bzḥ, pṣḥ, gḥk, lips (sepwātā) (√ršy, kss, kʾy, kwn, kʾr, šʿy, ṣḥy) rdy) Instruction: Slander: Word: to teach, instruct, to slander, calumniate word (meltā) counsel, preach (√ʿšq, ʾkl qrṣʾ, ṭlm) (√ylp, pys, mlk, krz) Deception: Speaking: to be dishonest, lie, to say, speak, narrate deceive, speak falsely (√ʾmr, mll, tny) (√kdb, dgl, šqr, zyp, nkl)

Roughly speaking, the first half of Reproof 2 is concerned with the positive forms of speech and the second half with the negative forms.43

Ephrem is well aware that speech implies a listener (1415-1540). For the active mouth is paired with an open ear. And the one who listens to sinful words becomes a guarantor for the debt incurred (1381-1414). Sometimes Ephrem obliquely expresses listening through a passive form of a verb of speaking: “It is a great profit when we correct and are corrected (da-nkawwen wa-d-netkawwan).”44 More often, Ephrem speaks more directly through a variety of words from the semantic field of hearing (√šmʿ, √ṣwt, ʾednā, etc.). Then, he ties this vocabulary to the connotative associations adhering to the vocabulary of speaking. Thus, Ephrem commends

43 For the former, see especially lines 1-70, 125-148. For the latter, see 1203-1636. 44 Reproof 2:21f.

128 listening to positive speech and condemns listening to negative speech. Similarly, the mouth’s inactivity is also seen as an act, which may be commended or condemned. For there are times when the silent mouth ought to teach or reprove.45 And the slanderous and mocking mouth should be still.46

Thus, a weave of polarities stretches across Reproof 2—Correct speech is set opposite incorrect speaking and listening. And this weave supports a single structural polarity, which is simultaneously subtle and persistent: i.e. reproof::mockery (makksānūtā::muyyāqā). It is structural in that it holds together many of the homily’s independent elements; It is persistent in that it spans the entire homily; and it is subtle in that it is only once expressed through parallelism (1222a-b).47 But Ephrem does not rely on this isolated occurrence of parallelism to lodge the opposition into the minds of his auditors. Rather, he strongly associates reproof with healing and mockery with disease.

Reproof is a medicine, which heals the sin-disease (1-70). Sometimes, the physician’s healing-incision hurts the patient (39-44). But the incision extracts what is harmful (135f).

Other times, the physician is sick and needs to take his own medicine (41-46). And often the physician needs to be subjected to another’s reproving-incision (47-52). Yet, no one should be ashamed of reproof. For proper medicine seeks to eradicate the disease, not the patient (187-

192). Thus, Ephrem imagines his audience as a community of physicians, who are constantly healing one another through reproof.

57 If you are healthy, heal! But if you are sick, be healed!

45 See Reproof 2:129-134, 141-144. 46 See Reproof 2:1381-1414. 47 This verse is not in Y; it is attested in Pp and Rahm.

129

And the healthy community works and cultivates a spiritual life filled with fasting, prayer, and love (89-124). And the whole community benefits and profits as the Evil One and his unjust works are cast out (125-128, 149-180). Thus, Ephrem first establishes an antithesis between reproof-medicine and sin-disease. And then allows this antithesis to lurk in the background as he turns to reproving a variety of sins.

In the second half of the homily, Ephrem’s reproof begins to center on the sins of the mouth. And as Ephrem makes this transition he joins the polarity Satan::Man::God with the polarity life::death—

1199 Indeed, just as God on every occasion would give us life, 1201 so also Satan on every occasion would slay us. 1203 Just as two pennies can give life to the soul, 1205 so also the mocking of two words can destroy the soul. 1207 Just as with one word, the thief who acknowledged lived, 1209 so also with one word, whoever mocks can perish. 1211 With one mocking word, “Miriam became white as snow with leprosy.”

Ephrem already established that the word of reproof brings health and life. Now, he associates the mocking word with Satan and his lust for death and disease. The local rhetorical function is to remove the middle ground. This is especially apt, because Ephrem thinks his audience has a tendency of discounting the danger of verbal and mental sins (1541-52). Thus, most of the latter half of the homily argues that sins of the mouth will corrupt and invalidate an otherwise pious life.

The preacher thoroughly develops the theme of mockery as a disease. And he brings together all the sins of the mouth (mockery, lying, slander, etc.) and condemns them together.

130

Thus, all of the sins of the mouth stand together on the Satanic left side of the moral divide. And there, death and disease abound. And on the right side of the chasm, God’s people use their mouths to reprove and instruct one another. And there, health and life proliferate.

****

Selections of the Second Verse Homily of Reproof, were translated into Greek and now bear the Latin title De morbo linguae et pravis affectibus.48 The Greek translator selected passages which focused upon the sins of the mouth and (for the most part) translated them faithfully.49 Interestingly, several of the topics which I judged as among the most essential elements of Ephrem’s Syriac sermon are either entirely absent or radically truncated in the Greek sermon: the balance of justice, marital relations, the positive use of the tongue, and the God::Man polarity.50 Thus, the Greek homily faithfully transmits some aspects of Ephrem Syrus.

Ephrem’s spiritual guidance offered in Reproof 1 and 2 were received and adapted in the Greek tradition. But, unlike Reproof 1 and 2, the Third Verse Homily of Reproof does not appear to have had an afterlife in the Greek speaking monasteries. Reproof 3 is a well-structured and eloquent homily that seems to have fell out of circulation after the sixth century. Hopefully, all three of these unquestionably authentic homilies will re-enter Ephremic studies and fuel future discussion of Ephrem’s spirituality.

48 Unfortunately, my knowledge of this text is based upon two sources, which do not discuss dating. See Biesen, Annotated Bibliography §111. And Suh, “From the Syriac Ephrem to the Greek Ephrem,” 20-81. Suh’s work was quite ambitious, but the chapter on De Morbo Linguae demonstrates an intermediate knowledge of Syriac at best. The point is not to criticize, but to suggest that new work ought to be done. 49 For details on the translation technique, see ibid (but read with caution). Perhaps, the translator was dealing with selections in his Syriac source. The Syriac manuscript tradition contain two manuscripts (T and Rahm) which similarly truncate the homily. 50 Contrary to my interpretation, Suh argues that the central theme of the Syriac homily is repentance. Whereas I judged the topic to be too minor to warrant direct attention. Certainly, Ephrem urged his audience to turn from the left to the right. Yet the focus was not on the turning, but on living out a righteous life. Suh, “From the Syriac Ephrem to the Greek Ephrem,” 22.

Chapter 7 Coda Closure: A Commentary on Reproof α Coda, n. 1. Music. A passage of more or less independent character introduced after the completion of the essential parts of a movement, so as to form a more definite and satisfactory conclusion. --Oxford English Dictionary

I selected the corpus of texts to be studied in this dissertation while this project was still in infancy. Thus, the decision to include the homily titled Another of Reproof was made prior to the discovery of its questionable authenticity.1 And the question never neatly resolved into outright rejection of authenticity. As such, this homily has remained on the periphery of this study. Moreover, if it were somehow judged authentic, its themes and rhythms do not quite allow this text to be tightly grouped with the other three. So, if by chance the scribes of DS 21 and 27 were aware of this homily and considered it authentic, they might have had good reason for excluding it from their collection of St. Ephrem’s Verse Homilies of Reproof.

Since this homily is neither properly inside nor outside the scope of the present study, it sits on the periphery forming a boundary around the study. The homilist seems to be aware of the Ephremic corpus and its poetic norms. And the verse-homily is poetically well-formed. So, if it is mere pastiche, it is a rare case of pastiche crafted by a skilled poet. And while the authorship is uncertain, it is certainly Ephremic. Thus, this final chapter offers a commentary on

Reproof α, while looking back upon the foregoing study of the spiritual guidance of St. Ephrem the Syrian and looking forward to forthcoming studies of this borderland pastor-poet. So, this chapter provides closure while sitting outside the core structure of this study just as a musical coda provides closure.

1 This is the title that I have given to the text. See Chapter 4. F calls it a Verse Homily of Reproof of Blessed St. Ephrem. And W calls it a Verse Homily of Warning and Admonition of St. Ephrem.

131 132

A Summary Commentary on Reproof α2

With polar thought patterns, the preacher contrasts how the righteous and unrighteous perceive iniquity (ʿawlā).3 The unjust (ʿawwālē) eagerly seek to fill their senses with the saccharine (√ḥly) sights and smells of sin (15-24, 29-44), while the just (kēnē) recoil from the merest hint of sin (25-28). For they recognize that it is bitter-bile (√mrr). And if the taint of sin touches the just, they assiduously purge their bodies and their minds (45-70). The polar thinking is evident in this passage as just people avoid sin’s bitterness and unjust people desire its sweetness (just::unjust, bitter::sweet, desire::avoidance).4

In this world, the just and unjust are mixed up together and inseparable (81f). But in the final judgment, sinners are “forced to fall into one disease-ridden depth.”5 The author vividly depicts the future eternal torment of sinners as he draws his audience into the sensory experience of the damned (81-248). As the sinners fall, they are piled up and tormented. The friction of their writhing compacted bodies kindles a fire (137-160). So, everywhere they look they see the fire blazing in piles of persons (qnōmē).6 With fire-filled vision, the eternally damned become rabidly insane (√pqr, √šṭy) and fill up their feral mouths with human flesh (185-230). And as the fire crackles (√pqʿ) and their bones pop (√pqʿ), they howl (√ʿwy) and groan (√gʿy).7 The preacher piles up (quasi-)onomatopoeic language to reenact their guttural (and pharyngeal!) groans.8 And the audience experiences hell’s landscape within the sermon’s soundscape.

2 All line numbers follow the edition and translation found in the appendices, instead of Beck’s line numbers. See Appendix B. 3 See α:1-70. 4 For a discussion of Ephrem’s polarity injustice::justice, see Chapter 6. For Ephrem’s polar thought patterns, see Chapter 2. 5 See α:91f. 6 See α:147f. 7 See α:97-102, 123f. 8 The lexica only mention √ʿwy as an onomatopoeic root. See Sok. However, whether or not the other roots are properly onomatopoeic in their etymology, I think the homily encourages the auditors to hear the relationship between sound and meaning in the roots √pqʿ and √gʿy.

133

And after the sinners have been forced to fall, the just ones, the sons of the light, “rejoice at the summit of paradise,” where hunger and thirst are sated beneath fruitful trees (249-282).

And from the vantage of that summit, they see the punishment of the sons of darkness just as

Abraham saw the destruction of Sodom (283-294). This homily’s short description of paradise is consistent with the imagery and vocabulary of St. Ephrem’s Teaching Songs on Paradise. In fact, the parallels with the first song are striking: “The sons of light stay on the summit of paradise” and look across the abyss at Gehenna.9 And just as Abraham looked upon Sodom’s destruction, so they were looking upon the torments of those who denied Christ.10 Whether or not Ephrem is the true author of Reproof α, the depiction of paradise and Gehenna is Ephremic.

The imagery itself seems to be an inversion and adaption of Christ’s tale of the rich man, who looked across the chasm upon Abraham and Lazarus.11 And even though the homilist does not bring the story of the rich man and Lazarus to the foreground, the entire homily may be read as an artful expansion upon the theme of that story.

The homily transitions from Abraham’s gaze upon Sodom to a thoroughly expanded description of that destroyed city (291-468). Orphans, widows, and other desperate folk were dying of exposure and starvation in that city, while the wealthy hoarded clothes and food (299-

326). So, the needy raised an invective to heaven (301-306). And the hidden Judge heard their cry and sent fire and brimstone (323-330). The fire raced through the city, shaking buildings, breaking down doors, and searching rooms (331-342).12 And when it found a greedy person, it struck him so that he burst into flame (343-354). And so, the panicked populace attempted to

9 See Par 1:12-14. 10 Ibid. 11 Cf. Lk 16:19ff. 12 There are many parallels with Ephrem’s description of the movement of the floodwaters and flames in the corresponding narratives of Genesis 6 and 19 in the fifth Verse Homily on Nicomedia, lines 137-236.

134 run and hide (355f). But the fire found them, promptly suppressing pompous oppression (357-

376). And each received a poetically apt judgment in kind (377-468).

After this frightening narrative, the preacher warns his audience of their own love of injustice and oppression (469-522). The poet personalizes the frightful narratives of future and past judgment in order to motivate his audience to repent. Or perhaps, the poet spoke to the oppressed as if the oppressor was present to answer their own cries to heaven for justice. And at this high point of fear and anticipation, the author deploys a lengthy typological comparison series to encourage his audience with the hope of salvation (523-590). For each plague which struck Egypt is an inverted type of Christ’s deliverance. Surprisingly, the series does not culminate in the death of the firstborn on the cross, but with “the firstborns marked in the true church in heaven” and the promise of “glory and light in the bridal chamber.”

This brief respite of heavenly hope does not last long. For the author returns to multiple examples of the sins and judgments of the ancient generations (i.e. biblical narratives).13

Throughout the homily, the poet carefully controls the emotions of his audience by allowing brief periods of rest and hope amid lengthy passages of horror. Yet, in this homily’s penultimate movement, the pastor-poet dilutes the dread by mixing in a constant reminder of the work of

Christ. Thus, this homily creates and maintains a stark contrast between the destruction of the oppressor and the salvation of the oppressed. And like the three unquestionably authentic Verse

Homilies of Reproof, the preacher effectively removes the middle ground between right and wrong.

13 See lines 591-738.

135

Anti-Urban Asceticism

The homily concludes by setting up the prophet Elijah as a model of the spiritual life.

But the ascetic practice commended through that model is distinctly anti-urban. Elijah chose a life of beggary and voluntary poverty as he forsook the company of people (739-770). And becoming drunk with God’s love, he slept in the wild upon bare ground and dwelt with animals in valleys, mountains, and caves. This iconographic presentation of Elijah an ascetic prophet is consistent with the image of Ephraem Byzantinus, which gained popularity in the Greco-Syrian monasteries of the fifth and sixth centuries.14 But it is not consistent with the portrait of the

Nisibene pastor-poet, who demonstrated his love for his native city and its inhabitants through his Verse Homilies of Reproof.

The first three homilies offer spiritual guidance to ascetics and non-ascetics living in the walled city of Nisibis. In fact, in those three homilies, the only time Ephrem mentions ascetics leaving the city to live with animals is in Reproof 1, where this act is explicitly censured as the abandonment of the true flock of God.15 Reproof 2 offers advice to non-ascetics living in close proximity to ascetics. And Reproof 3 advises highly educated bookkeepers and potential pastors, whose services imply community. In all three sermons, Ephrem urges simplicity in clothing and diet as well as honest business dealings and interpersonal interactions. Thus, Ephrem the renowned choirmaster demonstrates that he is also a spiritual guide and master of homilies as he offers instruction and reproof within a distinctly urban setting.

In the process of explicating these sermons, I have attempted to distinguish between ascetic and non-ascetic members of the audience. For careful exposition suggests this

14 See Chapter 1. See also Griffith, “Images of Ephraem,” 9-13. 15 See Chapter 5. Of course, their motive for leaving the city was not to further the spiritual life, but to obtain chattel.

136 distinction. However, these same texts hint that the distinction between ascetics and non-ascetics in fourth century Nisibis is not always as sharp as the binary pair (ascetic/non-ascetic) would suggest. And where that distinction is sharp, Ephrem seems to be eager to bridge the gap. For in the second homily, Ephrem cautions against the division forming between married folk and their celibate counterparts.16 And this caution against division receives the most emphatic prosodic clustering in the whole homiletic corpus: Ephrem employs the roots √plg (to divide) and √šry

(~to loose) nearly thirty times in a short passage (1279-1314). And he stresses that marriage and celibacy are two staircases leading the body up to heaven (925-934).

After Nisibis was ceded to the Persians in 363, Ephrem spent his last decade in Edessa where he continued his role as a pastor-poet in service to his bishops.17 While in Edessa,

Ephrem learned of two contemporary pioneers of the ascetic life, Julian Saba and Abraham

Qidunaya, who were living nearby in the wilderness.18 Later hagiographical tradition presents their manner of life in terms consistent with the model of Elijah depicted in Reproof α.19 And while Ephrem honored both holy men in song, he downplayed their anchoretic withdrawal.20

According to his presentation, the spiritual exercise of Abraham and Julian consisted in almsgiving and poverty; mournful prayers and vigils; and abstaining from food, sex, and baths.

Thus, late in life, Ephrem was impressed by models of non-urban ascetic practice.21 But Ephrem does not seem particularly interested in the distinction between urban and non-urban piety. As such, the model presented in Reproof α is not un-Ephremic. Yet, the text seems more at home among Ephrem’s immediate successors, who were busy writing poetry in the style of Ephrem.

16 See Chapter 6. 17 See Chapter 1. 18 On Abraham, see Hayes, “In Praise of Abraham Qīdunāyā.” On Julian, see Griffith, “Julian Saba.” 19 For a succinct summary of the life of Julian, see ibid, 190. On Abraham’s hagiography, see Hayes, “In Praise of Abraham Qīdunāyā,” 1-11. 20 See ibid, 317-320. And Griffith, “Julian Saba,” 205. 21 Cf. Ibid, 209. Cf. Qid 1:4, 7, 13, 16.

137

Thus, the present study of the spiritual guidance found in four Verse Homilies of Reproof attributed to St. Ephrem draws to a close. The first three homilies are the product of the Nisibene borderland pastor-poet. And the fourth homily sits on the boundary between those works of certain authenticity and those of certain fabrication, bridging the gap between Ephrem and his successors. All four texts provide valuable information for the reconstruction of Ephremic spirituality. This study has laid the foundation for future cross corpus topical studies by discussing the audience, occasion, and primary themes of the homilies. And special attention has been paid to the poetic structures to pave the way for future studies into the development of the verse-homiletic tradition.

Appendix A

A Translation

Four Verse Homilies of Reproof

Attributed to Saint Ephrem the Syrian

138

The First Verse Homily of Reproof

Pain compels me to speak;

order commands me to be silent.

For anything excessive—

however sweet—is not sweet.

5 Everything in measure is pleasant;

Everything in measure is sweet.

Because the belly is small,

it is helpful for it to receive in measure.

The mind is not like the belly;

10 Its womb is too large for measure. cf. SdF 2:129f

With and without measure,

it can receive instruction.

But with boredom1 there shrinks

the mind’s large womb. trʿytʾ

15 If boredom will retreat tʿrwq

from speaker and hearer,

the word will grow and stretch out,

the ear will grow and extend.

Let not our hearing be bored

20 with stories about the destroyed city.2

1 ܬ.

139

Its stories are full of remedies.

They are better than medicine.

Medicine heals the body,

but these [heal] body and spirit.

25 The city was destroyed and in it was destroyed

the evils which used to be concealed therein.

Come! Let us destroy our evils,

lest we be destroyed along with our evils.

In [the city], envy was smothered in smothered [bodies],

30 since there was no one there to backstab.3

Jealousy grew cold, since there was not there

sister-wives and concubines.

Fervent anger chilled out,

since the entire city became chilly.

35 Burning desire burnt low

in cold corpses.

A little while ago, it was smoldering

and when Wrath looked on it, it was quenched.4

In it, ostentation is thrown contemptuously down,

40 so there would be none to put it on with garments.

Two things a glamorous5 person wears:

2 On the significance of this city, see Chapter 5. 3 ܪ ̇ ܕ. Reading the final word as bestrā. Thus, the phrase is literally “who strikes the back.” However, it could just as likely be read as b-setrā (in secret). On the contrary, the reading ba-stārā (with ruin) is unlikely, since it would give the line an extra syllable. 4 On the interpretive difficulties of this verse, see Chapter 5.

140

clothing along with ostentation.

In it there was destroyed the foolish women’s fashion:6 √skl/√sql

a sum which is wholly a loss. Virg 39:12, CH 1:3

45 Destroyed were the extravagant women’s ornaments:

a spectacle full of stumbling-blocks!

On these despicable7 stones,

feet [were] stumbling on the earth.

On the gems and stones of the extravagant women,

50 the eyes of children [were] stumbling.

The stylish sandal was too heavy

for that mountain laden land.8

The mountains were not as heavy for it

as that light sandal which was upon it.

55 The prophet ignored all sorts of adornments

and only reproved the sandal:

“On behalf of an unclean sandal,

they sold the righteous for silver.”9 Amos 2:6

Gaze intently upon this phrase,

60 you who are glamorous and fashionable.

If you do not understand its import,

5 ܙ. 6 . 7 ̈ . Ephrem likely intended a word play based on two senses of this word. These precious stones are vile, but also their potential for harm is ironically undervalued. 8 i.e. Jerusalem’s environs. 9 Peshitta: “.̈ ܘ . ܕ ܙܕ ”

141

go and ask for its interpretation!

By no means did this escape you,

because you are fashionable.

65 You knew the sandal’s potency,

because you were armed with it.

The sandal which danced at the banquet

severed the head of John [the Baptist]. Cf. Mt 14:1ff, par.

The girl’s sandal slew

70 the herald, the son of the barren woman.

He was the greatest of the prophets,

and a small sandal slew him. Aph 1:260:5-6

A stylish sandal became a trap

and captivated the whole banquet.

75 Love for it entered within the mind

and took from him a pledge,

an indissoluble oath

concerning an unforgivable injustice.

The head of the banquet sent for

80 [someone] to bring the head of the herald.

The foot despises the shoe,

because feet provoked anger at the banquet.

Be afraid of Wrath, O brazen woman,

and take away a little adornment.

142

85 Do not stare at the sandal,

for it is a commonplace sin.

If you were not acquainted with its harm,

then hear about the atrocity which came about through it.

Herodias strove with all artifice,

90 but she was defeated.

She buried many traps,

but she did not capture John.

She bribed with silver and gold,

but she did not kill the herald.

95 The head not bought with gold

the sandal severed with a dance.

Gold, the slayer of the innocent,

could not prevail over John.

Bribe, the blinder of eyes, was outmatched

100 when the sandal blinded eyes.

If it blinded the eyes of a king

[so that] he did not notice whom he was executing,

how much more will it blind those who are young,

so they would be cast down in a pit!

105 Listen and tremble, extravagant women!

On what account did John die?

You are shocked at the sin of [Herodias],

143

but you are wearing her shoe.

The atrocity which she effected frightens you,

110 but your sandal resembles her sandal.

You are angry at her dance,

but you are imitating her steps.

That woman rent a single prey;

You should not harm many.

115 Shepherds will destroy

an animal which harms the fold.

But our shepherds will not even

throw a stone at animals.

You10 are of the flock, yes even you!

120 Do not become one who is against it.

Become a ewe in the fold.

Do not be a predator.11

How long will the Shepherd of All endure

when he sees His flock’s harm?

125 Even creation threatens us

since we have angered the Creator.

See! The earth beneath us has trembled,

because we did not tremble before the Most High.

The lofty cliffs were torn asunder,

10 fem. 11 ܬ. Lit. “an animal of tooth”.

144

130 because our lofty-pride surpassed them.

The heights were brought down, so that we

might be brought down from the summit.12

Even the trees were uprooted,

so that we would uproot our evil habits.

135 Wrath uprooted plants,

so that we might uproot ugly [deeds].

Lightning struck and suddenly blinked out,13

so that [our] stone heart might be softened.

The luminaries in the sky were darkened,

140 so that in the darkness we might see our stumbling blocks.

In that moment when light became dark,

everyone came to see his own blemishes.

Since we did not see in the light,

the luminary darkened so we might see in [the dark].

145 These things happened near us,

so we might believe a remote rumor.

Let us fear small frights,

lest a grievous torment come.

The small frights have proclaimed

12 The poetic structure of lines 129-132 is noteworthy: X √rwm X X X √rwm X √rwm X X X √rwm Where X is a variable lexical unit and √rwm is various derivations of that root. 13 ܘܐ. lit. “dried up suddenly”.

145

150 that repentance is necessary—

not the repentance which [endures for] days,

but one which [endures for] months and years. Virg 3:10

Let us not bear a burden for a single day

and then drop it on the next.

155 Let us carry [our] lifestyle with moderation,14

so it might become provisions for our road.

Better is a short regular run,

than a lengthy [run] for a single day.

A small regular profit

160 is able to become a great treasury.15

Just as from droplets,

a great surge gathers strength.

Come! Let us decrease little by little

those former habits.

165 Are you16 unable to be somebody who fasts?

Do not be a glutton.

Decrease your consumption a little.

And See! Your fast will be upon your table!

Do not save for tomorrow

170 what you withheld from your belly.

14 ̈ ܘܕ ܓ ̇ . Beck translates, “Laß uns (die Tage) verbinden und die Gewohnheit (der Buße) tragen,...” However, I chose to translate mazzeg as a co-verb, with the sense “to do s.t. with moderation”, see CAL, D-Stem entry 1b. 15 Rahm. adds: “And if you gather it persistently, / it will become a great treasury.” 16 masc.

146

Give it every day to those who are in need.

And See! [This] will fulfill the role of fasting!

Are you unable to abstain from wine?

Let not the wine, which you drink, drink you!

175 Wine is not as silent within you,

as it was within its cup. Virg 3:4

It brings you to other things;

It drinks you, when you drink it.

Know that whatever is too strong for one

180 is brought down among many.

Do not approach wine by yourself,

because it is too strong for you.

Let the orphans drink it with you

and you will conquer it with many!

185 A little wine is defeated

among many drinkers.

Just as it conquers

when it is too much for its drinkers.

Invite the needy to [drink] it,

190 so it might be brought down among many.

Are you ashamed to wear sackcloth?

Was it too small for you when you put it on?

Sackcloth [really] is too small for our sins

147

and ashes for the whitening17 of our spots.18

195 Are you ashamed of simplicity?

Become ashamed of glamorous adornment.

Take up19 a little simplicity

and come down a little from adornment.

Receive the intermediate garment,

200 which is neither glamorous nor wretched.

Leave aside the lowly and lofty

and choose the intermediate.

Not one day for abasement

and the next for indulgence.

205 Not one day for ashes

and the next for extravagance.

Either you exalted yourself to heaven

or brought yourself down to the abyss.

Is going barefoot too onerous for you?

210 Do not wear shoes glamorously.

Be not devoted to barefootitude

nor to the glamorous shoe.

[Not] one day considerable abasement

17 Reading ܪ as ܪܘ. 18 Rahm adds: Penitence is the material of sackcloth, whose clothing is rougher than your body. We are weak before sackcloth, but mighty for sins. 19 Reading with Rahm.

148

and the next considerable fashion.

215 [Nor] one moment intense weeping

and the next vicious laughter. cf. Nis 62:8ff

Take up these measures,

which were established by the discerning.20

A modest shoe is becoming

220 for the foot which comes to prayer.

It comes to receive a remedy,

may it not harm the onlookers.21

……22

The eye is slandered and falsely accused

of being the most debauched of all the senses.

225 Although worse than it are

the members within the body.

See! All the members together

reveal the heart’s private parts.

The members are divided

230 against the heart, the king of the senses.

If the heart should escape,

[si]n’s secret binds it with something.

The members reveal its secret:

20 Rahm adds: “Be not tossed hither and thither / like an ignorant man. 21 Beck does not translate this hemistich, presumably as an oversight. Also, he numbers two different hemistichs as 222. I have chosen not to translate the second of these, because it is semantically dependent on what preceded. 22 One and a half folios are missing. This gap can probably be filled with an unedited ms in Deir al-Surian, see Chapter 4.

149

its tempter is from [his own hou]sehold.

……

…is a mirror of the mind.

260 Depicted for the discerning are

[the mind’s] hidden things within its visible things.

So also, the unseen soul

can be seen in the body. Par 8:6

What the natural properties of the soul23 are,

265 the body is able to teach you.

If there is desire in its nature,

the body can reveal [it] to you.

If there is also pride in it,

the body can demonstrate [it].

270 Draw near to the outward body

and you will see the entire [soul] through the entire [the body].

Consider whether it is good in its nature;

Investigate whether it is evil in its nature.

Indeed, [it is] neither evil nor good,

275 for its willing is good or evil.

Draw near to the outward senses

and they will enumerate for you the internal blemishes.

Do not inquire into hidden things,

because visible things will instruct you.

23 ܕ ̈

150

280 The prophet cried out when the daughters of Zion

angered with a sandal and a dance. Cf. Is 3:16ff

He counted and enumerated their adornments

and set in balance their afflictions,24

so that they would despise their adornments

285 on account of the fear of their afflictions.

He enumerated and brought an end to their adornments,

and he called for captors [to come] against them.

He placed the sand of their road in the balance

opposite to the sprinkling of perfumes.

290 He exchanged desirable plaited hair

for abhorrent baldness.

Instead of a wreath of braids,

he gave them disheveled hair.

Instead of belts and girdles,

295 they girt their loins with a rope.

He promised them barefootedness

instead of the fashion of their sandals.

Because they secretly cultivated crime,

captivity openly stripped [them].

300 That fornication which they loved,

he gave to them in captivity.

Fornication suffered in captivity,

24 ܢ ܘܘ̈ ܐ ̇ ܘ

151

because the practice was without order.

The act was lawless,

305 by force and not by will.

He gave fornication to the defiled women,

but he did not give it according to their will.

He did not give them as they desired

because vengeance25 is unceasing.

310 Not according to their will did they fornicate,

since according to their will they had fornicated.

What they had for enjoyment,

he gave likewise for punishment.

With the thing which angered [God], they were tormented,

315 because their punisher is wise and clever.

Their bodies were [sun] burnt in captivity

and their perfumes became fetid in it.

Their beauty was marred in it

and their complexion withered and perished.

320 Those who were [well-] known in the city

were unknown in captivity.

No one knew them by sight,

since their countenances were altered in captivity.

Those who heard them used to know them

325 by their names when they began to speak.

25 . Not in lexica. Reading as nomen actiones. Noldeke §117. Likewise, Beck translates as “Rache.”

152

Captivity brought the extravagant women low,

since within prosperity26 they lived luxuriously.

Since they angered prosperity’s Lord,

the desert exacted vengeance from them.

330 She who made her countenance resplendent,

her very own face became very burnt.

Those years of beautification

did not withstand a single noon [sun].

The heat came and withered simultaneously

335 their complexions, [those] beautiful blossoms.

The sun burnt their adornments

and [their] shade-grown flowers.

With prosperity’s adornment, they became loathsome

to the lofty lover of the lowly.

340 So with captivity’s injustice, they became pleasing

to the just lover of penitents.

With prosperity the body became radiant;

with captivity the spirit became beautiful.

The Evil One made them fashionable in prosperity,

345 so they would become loathsome with their adornments.

The Good One made them loathsome in captivity,

so they might become adorned for him with remorse

26 . This word, which frequently has the sense of “peace.” I interpret here as the “prosperity” and cultivation, which comes through a time of peace.

153

in Babel and Ashur, which are

our near neighbors.

350 These [nations] got up, went out, and lead captive

the daughters of Zion because they acted wickedly.

If they came and lead captive from afar,

how much more will they lead captive from nearby!

O Nisibis, rebuke your daughters,

355 for Zion did not rebuke her daughters.

See! Your mothers are glamorous!

Your noble women have no honor.27

See! Your virgins are brazen!

See! Your chaste women are audacious!28

360 Audacious is their clothing;

Glamorous is the shoe of their feet.

Women going to a banquet

are not as fashionable as our chaste women.

They were in simplicity of clothing

365 before they came to discipleship.

After they had become disciples, they became adorned.

After they had become chaste,29 they became glamorous.

Virgins became chaste women,

cloistered in chambers.

27 See discussion of the polarity light::heavy in Chapter 5. 28 See discussion of audience in Chapter 5. 29 Beck interpretively translates, “…seit sie Töchter des Bundes wurden…” See also, line 482.

154

370 They have acquired wandering instead of gravitas

and market places instead of chambers.

Previously, they were kept

under the protection of father and mother.

But they chose the church instead of a mother

375 and teachers instead of fathers.

With this pretense they began.

With this pact30 they did not continue.

They rebelled against church and mother

and against teachers and fathers.

380 Before they came to the yoke,

they were kept under protection.

But now under a nominal yoke,

their head has escaped the [real] yoke.

They approached discipleship, order,

385 reading, and doctrine.

Their tongue is not [engaged] in reading

nor is their mind on the Scripture.

They are wearied by another contemplation;

they are occupied with another care.

390 We have stripped off all chastity;

only its name remains with us.

The weightiest name in all of creation

30 ܝ ܬ.

155

was treated exceedingly lightly by foolish women.

No one sees and praises [its name],

395 since everyone sees and scoffs.

Everyone seeks to gather

disciples to himself by any means.

Before learning, he is teaching!

Before learning elocution, he is teaching through reading!31 SdF 6:219-222

400 With every opportunity, he seeks

to assume the title of “teacher.”32

None among us teaches during suffering

nor learns during pain.

One teaches for praise;

405 another learns for honor.

Also, that one who is becoming a disciple

is twisted from the beginning.

If he was poor, he magnified himself.

If he was destitute, he became luxurious.

410 The day-laborer who yesterday became a disciple

has begun to make his fingers luxurious.

The child who today became a disciple,

has begun to give orders among the elders. SdF 6:249-250

31 ܗ ܕ ܡ. 32 In this passage, Ephrem laments that inexperienced teachers have presumptuously assumed the title “teacher.” In SdF 6:217ff, Ephrem criticizes the related problem of experienced teachers leaving aside advanced instruction and allowing children and outsiders to fill these roles.

156

And if [someone] was a slave and under a yoke,

415 he went out to become a [debt] collector.33

And their discipleship did not go straight out

to that road [replete with] inns.34 HdF 5:1:6, 65:1:6;

The discipleship taking place in our days35 CH 22:8, 25:1;

is running off the road. SdF 6:183-186

420 We heard improperly

the things being read every day.

Yet they are written properly

and they are also read properly.

But they are being heard improperly

425 in that they are performed improperly.

God rose up in court

and [His] cheek was struck by a slave. Jn 18:22

But as for us, our ear cannot

endure a little word.36

430 From a small flame, our mind

heats up and pours forth its anger.

We applied to ourselves an upright name,

but in reality37 we are upside down.

33 ̇ . However, Beck translates as “Leuteschinder” and notes usages in Matt 5:25 and Luke 12:58. 34 ̈ . ܢܘ̈ ܘܬ ܘ ܘܨܪܬ̣ ܇ܘܐܕ ܝܗ̇ ܪܘ 35 Lit. “years”. 36 Lines 426-9 quoted by Philoxenus in his Florilegium (#201) and lines 426-7 quoted in his Letter to the Monks of Senoun. See M. Brière and F. Graffin, Sancti Philoxeni episcopi Mabbugensis Dissertationes decem de Uno e Sancta Trinitate incorporato et passo: V. Appendices: I. Tractatus; II. Refutatio; III. Epistula dogmatica; IV. Florilegium., PO 41.1 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1982), 109. And André de Halleux, Philoxène de Mabbog: Lettre aux Moines de Senoun, CSCO 231-232 (Louvain: Peeters, 1963), 35:25-26.

157

That one whose spittle opened [the eyes of] the blind man, Jn 9:6

435 on his face the blind have spit.

That one who breathed out the Holy Spirit Jn 20:22

has received unclean spittle.

Treated with contempt was that countenance,

whose splendor startled the Seraphim. Cf. Is 6:2?

440 As for us, our sons’ beards are trimmed;

our daughters’ faces are fashionable.

We did not understand whither we have come;

we did not understand whither we were called.

As if to a banquet hall we have come

445 to frenzied decoration and pleasure.

Whoever happens upon a slain [corpse],

his complexion is suddenly discolored.38

You have meditated upon the slain prophets;

You have read in the stoned apostles.

450 While laughing at, we are reading in

the prophets and the apostles.

God is hung upon a tree

and mourning is required for creation.39 SdF 3:359

But new wine is drinking us

37 Or “in deed.” 38 . 39 Lines 452-453 quoted by Philoxenus of Mabbug in his Letter to the Monks of Senoun and in his Florilegium (#202). See Halleux, Moines de Senoun, 35:27-36:1. And Brière and Graffin, Florilegium, 109.

158

455 and pride is straddling us.

Married women had dressed simply,

but our chaste women are dressing fashionably.

The outer appearance is fashionable,

but the inner mind is spotted.

460 Even if there had been no battle,

their adornments would awaken battles.

Now that captivity is at the gate,40

what will happen to us?

The daughters of the world despised [its] dwelling,41

465 but [our] foolish women are smothered with it.

Whatever the outsiders have stripped off,

the insiders are putting on.

The sons of the land have abandoned the land

and the celibates are toiling in it.

470 The flock owners have neglected the flock

and our shepherds have acquired it.

They despise inside sheepfolds

and labor among those outside.

Instead of the flock, they are acquiring a flock,

475 animals instead of souls.

Instead of the sheep, they are tending [mere] sheep,

40 ܪܬ ܕ ܗ. On the interpretation of this line, see Chapter 5. 41 . Beck translation, “das Leben,” also has great merit.

159

transitory ones instead of true ones.

A whole flock passes by the hand

of the counter and is numbered.

480 And under the hand of the herdsmen

it is entrusted and cared for.

The flock of chaste men and women,

who is inspecting its numbering?

Those sheep are shepherding themselves.

485 They are roaming wherever they wish.

That flock is guarding itself

from the wolves encircling them.

If a ewe in the field is cut off

from its companions, its absence is noted.

490 As for the Messiah’s ewes,

who is caring for and arranging [them]?

The absence of the outside ewe is noted.

If it is lost, they search for its brand.42

Brand and fleece are sought;

495 Spirit and body are lost.

Animals are dearer to us

than spirits and souls.

The Creator left behind all creatures

and came to seek our souls.

42 ܘܪ

160

500 But, we have neglected souls;

we have become slaves to domestic animals.

Who will not tear his garment

on account of this great atrocity?

The deacons of the Divinity √šmš

505 have become servants of domestic animals. √šmš

That Shepherd of All is the one who came

to find a single stray sheep.

[Now] the ninety-nine who are present,

if they stray, they are not sought.

510 The lambs outside are more precious to us

than the children who became disciples.

The lambs were exchanged for [mere] lambs,

and the sons of the Kingdom for goats.

The white [lambs], the sons of the right hand

515 [were exchanged] for the black [goats], the sons of the left.

Would that, as with the outside flock,

we would guard the inside flock.

The flock of sheep was guarded;

the flock of people was neglected.

520 We turned [our eyes] from what was entrusted43

and were distracted by what was not entrusted.

Our shepherds are precisely settling accounts

43 .

161

with the outside shepherds.

How will the Chief of Shepherds

525 settle with them?

Since for a flock we bartered His flock,

for his flock He demands our flock.

Let the [outside] flock of sheep become

a mirror for the inside flock.

530 “That vineyard which was my beloved,

in the corner of a heavenly place” Is 5:1

an oppressor uprooted

and planted a new one in its stead.

Temporal vineyards are cultivated

535 more than the true vineyard.

Wrath has [now] laid waste every vineyard

so that we might labor in the true vineyard. Nis 5:16, 6:10

Wheat is being cultivated and sown

and the soul is choked among thorns.

540 The Just One has laid waste our fields;

Capital and interest were destroyed,

so the inner seed might come forth

thirty, sixty, and one hundred fold. Mt 13:23 & par.

Our [earthly] building is set upon a rock,

545 but our mind is built upon sand. Mt 7:24ff & par.

162

Wrath has assaulted and uprooted our walled cities

so that we might build ourselves upon the truth.

Remember old age,

O adorned youth,

550 since it will strip off your veil

and spread spots all over you.

To the harbor of filth,

it will gather all your extravagance.

The present day onlookers

555 are compelled to gaze at you.

When you are old, they will be compelled

to turn their faces from you.

Remember the sickness

with which your rosy face withers.

560 Also, remember death,

the dissolver of all your members.

How loathsome they soon become,

those members with which you have labored.

For they are loathsome in old age

565 and loathsome inside the grave.

O youth, why have you labored

to adorn ugliness?

O youth, your members

163

hide within them a myriad of spots.

570 And they will break forth and come out from within

old age as if from soil.

And a briar of spots will choke

the beautiful blossom of youth.

O youth, incline your ear

575 and I will become for you a counselor.

This one44 who has become ugly himself knows how

to multiply warnings for the beautiful.

This one who has fallen among robbers

can warn merchants.45

580 O youth, be adorned

with the beauty which never withers.

She46 honors and adorns

both youth and old age.

Sickness does not make her ugly;

585 [For] in its furnace, she is as pleasing as gold.

Old age does not harm her.

[For] in it, she finds rest from fear.

Illness cannot debilitate her,

44 -ܕ ܘܗ̇ . Presumably, Ephrem is referring to himself and highlighting his qualifications for this particular reproof. 45 Assuming that Ephrem is referring to himself, this line can offer a unique biographic detail. Perhaps, Ephrem is claiming to have fallen to robbers. Unfortunately, this line, which probably had a clear reference to the original audience, lacks the details that would interest those who wish to reconstruct the details of Ephrem’s life. 46 Here and for the remainder of the text, the antecedent for the ubiquitous use of the feminine singular pronoun in the English translation is the beauty that does not fade. In Syriac, the noun “beauty” (šuprā) is masculine. However, the present translator opted to use the feminine pronoun in translation to avoid pronoun ambiguity.

164

because she obtains power from its presence.

590 Poverty is her soil,

from [which] she blooms resplendently.

Nor does fasting debilitate her,

for she is the master of her own cultivation.47

Vigils and weeping are

595 the wellsprings which make her stately.

Diseases cannot overcome her,

because she puts on health on their account.

Temptation does not trample her,

because she acquires triumphs from it.

600 Nor does persecution persecute her,

because she plaits a crown from it.

Death cannot make her die,

because by her vitality, she kills [death].

The grave cannot cover her,

605 because by her resurrection, she tears it apart.

The air cannot restrain her,

because her wings soar to the summit.

Nor can heaven restrain her,

because the keys to the summit are with her.

610 She surpasses the exalted angelic-watchers.

They rejoice in her and bring her joy.

47 Or perhaps, “it is the master of its own (her?) cultivation.”

165

In the Holy Spirit, she prostrates to the Son,

who has lead her up and exalted her.

In Him, she thanks His Father for finding her worthy

615 to come unto Him.

166

The Second Verse Homily of Reproof

The one who blames ought

to be exalted above blame.1

The one who judges others,

let not his lifestyle judge him.

5 The one who reproves the unjust,

let him not be rebuked by Justice.

The one who wants to be a mirror,

let him look at himself first.

It was not because I considered myself pure

10 that I reprove, when I have reproved.

But, see, my members bear

blame before the judge.

This has not escaped my notice, for I know

that silence becomes sinners.

15 This has not passed me by, for I discerned

that silence becomes sinners.

See, my sins on every side

admonish me to be still.

1 Unless otherwise noted, the translation reads with the majority of manuscripts when there are more than two extant. Where only YP are extant, Y is strongly favored. Where only YR are extant, strongly favoring R. Footnotes are reserved for deviations from this principal.

167

So then, my brothers, my audacity

20 acquires a common remedy.

It is a great profit

when we correct and are corrected.

It is a just remedy

when we heal and are healed.

25 Let everyone bring his medicines

so that whoever is needy might be healed.

Let not the one who is well be incensed

when medicine is not brought to him.

Let not the one who is sick complain

30 when he is not healed in dire circumstances.2

Let not the one who heals be weary;

let him gaze upon God who does not grow weary.

Let not the one who binds [wounds] fear,

for his deed is not a sin.

35 Let not the one who reproves be over bearing;

let him correct [and] teach, while he prays.

If the one who corrects should strike,

let him be beaten by3 his own members.

That one who operates and heals a disease,4

2 . 3 Reading with Pp.

168

40 let him experience the pain of his loved ones.

With common medicines, even a physician

will heal his own sicknesses.

With the scourge with which he scourges others,

let the one who blames heal himself.

45 The sick physician is not ashamed

when he is healed by his own medicines.

Let not the one who blames be ashamed

when he receives a life-giving rebuke.

Let not the one who corrects be ashamed

50 even when he receives correction.

Let not the one who reproves be ashamed

even when he comes to instruction.5

Healthy physicians

heal one another.6

55 And if they happen to get sick,

they are healed by their fellows.

If you are healthy, heal!

But if you are sick, be healed!

And if you would be healed and also7 heal,

4 Reading with Pp. 5 6 Reading with YPp, against Beck’s correction to “others,” which is neither supported by the context nor by the Mss.

169

60 then you will have healed your companion and yourself.

Just as the sinner also

harms his companion and himself.

And he doubles the debt and the expense8

for the pair of them on both sides.

65 Help your companion and yourself,

so he [will have] a wage and you a profit.

For if you help him and are helped,

he will have a double profit.

Let us heal and be healed, my brothers,

70 so we might be healthy [enough] for work.

Indeed, it is repentance time!

Let us become cultivators in supplication.

Let us leave behind land cultivation,

which [only] produces terrestrial things for us.9

75 During peacetime, land is cultivated;

but in the midst of wrath, repentance.

Let us recognize what time it is,

so we might learn its [proper] cultivation from it.

But, if during peacetime

7 Reading with Pp. 8 ܘ ܘܬ. 9 Or, “…makes us terrestrial.”

170

80 we also should become penitents,

how much more fitting would it be

to do a deed in its [proper] time?

Be instructed by your labors;

Be corrected by your sowings.

85 For each of [your] deeds

is yoked to its [own] time and runs along with it.

See, wrath is racing through the land.

Let the penitent hasten his course.

Let us become ploughmen for fasting,

90 the seed which comes forth one hundred fold.

Let us become cultivators for prayer,

a vine whose wine is a comfort.

Let us become builders of our minds,

the temples suitable for God.

95 If the master stays at your house,

your door will have honor.

So how much will your door increase (in honor),

if God dwells in you!

Become a temple for Him, as well as a priest,

100 and serve Him within your temple.

Just as He became for you

171

a priest, a sacrifice, and a libation. Cruc 3:10

You also become for Him

a temple, a priest, and an offering.

105 Since your mind became a temple,

do not leave filth in it.

Do not leave in God’s house

something hateful to God.

May God’s house be adorned

110 with something pleasing to God.

If anger is there,

lewdness dwells there.

If wrath is there,

smoke10 rises there.

115 Cast out grudges from there

and the jealousy whose odor is repugnant.

Bring in and store love there,

that censor full of incense.

Gather up and cast out from it manure:

120 ugly associations and habits.

Scatter in it good thoughts11

as blossoms and flowers.

10 ܬ. Perhaps, Ephrem intended his audience to hear a pun with the near homonym (envy). 11 ̈ . Following Beck’s translation, Gedanken.

172

And instead of roses and lilies,

decorate it with prayers.

125 Come, let us indict our ugly deeds,

so that the Evil One will be indicted with them.

For it is helpful when sin

is reproached among all of us.

Unless injustice is disgraced,

130 its perpetrator cannot keep silent.

Unless deceit is indicted,

neither will its craftsman be afraid.

Unless medicine comes in to chase away

disease, it will not depart.

135 The incision enters to extract

something harmful from the members.

The cultivator breaks up the ground

and removes the tares from it.

The one who blames breaks up the heart

140 and removes corruption from it.

Unless old age rebukes, Virg 3:11:3

youth will have no restraint.

Unless Justice roars,

173

the voracious12 will have no fear.

145 Thus, let injustice be reproached

whether it is in us or in others.

If it is reproached while in us,

it is our minds’ remedy.

But if it is indicted in others,

150 it is a profit for our members.

It is found guilty on all counts,13

if we become prosecutors.

Injustice was quite bold,

for it rises against every door!

155 Satan’s boldness outstripped14

the boldness of his canine kinsman.

If the dog which we shy away15 from

is able to be cast out with a rebuke,

how shall the Bold One be cast out

160 when the mighty man does not rebuke?

If you are not aware of his boldness,

learn it from his servants.

12 Reading with Y: ̈ . Pp reads, ̈ , “oppressors.” 13 ܘ . 14 ܙ. 15 .

174

For with mighty names,

they exorcise the Demon every day.

165 With a prayer and a rebuke,

with gesticulation and hissing,

with all these torments,

the Bold One is tormented.

Every day, force uproots him

170 but he remains as a squatter.16

If his servants are bold,

how much bolder is the teacher of boldness!

If such is his boldness,

one who is bolder will overcome him.

175 And if he [can] not lead by force,

[only] the one who is inferior to him will worship17 him.

Because a person cannot see the one

who tramples or shamefully exposes him,

he is reproached by his deeds

180 and is exposed to shame by his acts.

Indeed, the battle was not brought to us

by the blamer who was helping us.

If he gives help,

16 ܬܘܬ. 17

175

he does not clothe us with reproach.

185 With helpful counsel,

he strips and takes off reproach.

Thus, the blemish of sin

is reproached among sinners.

When members are operated on,

190 the physician’s battle is with disease.

When a sinner is reproached,

truth’s battle is with injustice.

The Evil One leads us to expect

that we will be exposed,

195 so just as he makes us flee from disgrace,

we would flee from reproach.

And just as we hate blame,

we would escape from exposure.

He makes physicians hateful to us,

200 so disease will stay in our members.

For as long as we hate medicines,

his sickness will remain in us.

He incites us against those who blame us

to cut us off from remedies.

205 He makes counselors hateful to us as well,

176

lest they become our supports.

He counsels us to avenge ourselves

to multiply our disgrace in court.

He leads us into sin and conceals [it],

210 to hide his ugliness in us.

He teaches us falsehood,

so it might become a veil over our blemishes.

He also teaches us pride,

lest his ostentation be impoverished.

215 He grants us humility,

to mingle his bitterness with sweetness.

He attached his lie to the truth,

so his fraud would have a hiding place.

He decorates himself with lambskins,

220 lest the flock be scared away by him.

He does not allow

mirror-like remorse in our midst,

lest we see ourselves in it

and scrub off of ourselves his blemishes.

225 He stands against blame,

lest his ugliness be exposed.

Blame can become

177

like a mirror for his ugliness. Virg 11:1, Pub 1:1

He grants us hardheartedness,

230 so we might acquire his losses.

He mixes languor in us,

so we would be patient with his labor.

He grants us audacity,

so we would be bold [enough] to take damage.

235 He mixes boldness in us,

so we would not be ashamed when admonished.

He also teaches us subtlety,

so a person might skillfully sin.

He leads us to eloquence,

240 so a person might justify himself though he is guilty—

when he has sinned, he retorts;18

when he has harmed, he makes excuses19—

so that through his retort20 as well as his deed,

he might incur two penalties.21

245 [The Evil One] teaches refutations,22

lest we be found guilty when cross-examined.23

18 ܩ 19 ܘܪ ܩ 20 21 ̈ 22 ̈ ܕ ̈ ܗ

178

When we have sinned in deed,

we turn around to justify [ourselves] through disputation.

He grants boldness to childhood

250 and terror to old age,

so old age would be afraid

and would not rebuke childhood.

He teaches abuse to the audacious

and fear to the one who blames;

255 so that when the one who blames becomes afraid,

the corrupt man will not be healed.

See! He makes us ugly secretly

and he adorns us openly;

so we might become filthy graves,

260 which are full of internal uncleanness.

He clothes us with attractive names;

he grants us ugly deeds.

With names on the right

and with deeds on the left.

265 If one were to investigate the name—

that beautiful one placed upon us—

he would discover that it is like a veil

23 ܠ ܐ̇

179

spread over our inner blemishes.

[The name’s] external livery is golden;

270 Its internal adornment is fraud.

Underneath the seal, the great image,

and the royal signatures,

it stores and lays up a counterfeit—

inferior brass instead of gold.

275 Underneath nominal truth,

fraud overlays man.

Few are true who are

true inside and out.

Many are those who are

280 manifestly covered with external names.

A judge is covered with the name of “judgment,”

but theft is underneath his name.

Another has the name, “punisher,”

but24 rapacity is underneath his name.

285 Names are names with all of us.

Sins are sins with all of us.

Underneath illustrious names,

ugly sins are performed.

24 Reading with W against YPp.

180

For we25 have made those holy names

290 which were upon us

into patrons and protectors

for the sins performed among us.

Because of [these] names,

no one can rebuke us.

295 For who can rebuke

judges and magistrates?

Who would dare to correct

herdsmen and shepherds?

Who would [dare] to make a law

300 for those law makers?

Who would dare, as a disciple,

to become a master for his masters?

Who would be so bold, as a pupil,

to act wise among his teachers.

305 Since no one is able to rebuke us,

we are sinning with our voice raised.

Since no one is able to blame us,

we are as reckless as we wish.

Those names of justice

25 Reading with Pp.

181

310 which were punishers for sins,

we made them into a wall before us

that we might be hidden within them.

Today, in just names,

injustice hastens to take refuge.

315 In ordinances and law courts,26

we set snares to rob.

[Injustice] casts out the truth from his house

and in its stead falsehood is served.

The law is forcibly driven

320 from the one who prosecutes27 it.

See! Sins are healthy in our generation,

because the judge’s scepter is sickly.

If the scepter would gain a little strength,

the laws would be made healthy with it.

325 Sins are performed in the district;

sins are cultivated in the city.28

The dry land is polluted with sins,

the water and the wetland with ablutions.

My brothers, wakeful laws

26 ̈ ̈ ܕܕ ܪܬܘ ̈ 27 ̇ ܬ 28

182

330 are lulled to sleep by Mammon.

Who will open his mouth and mutter?

For everyone’s mouth is muzzled.

If the judge grows angry,

gold knows how to persuade him.

335 If the punisher cries out,

silver knows how to silence him.

The reprover does not reprove,

because an offering puts him to shame.

Everyone seeks his own way

340 to depart from the master.

For him, the path away from the master was

to have [only] his mouth dwell with the master.

He can no longer reprove him,

because he can no longer look at him.

345 The spoiler has lifted his head,

because the blamer has lowered his eyes.

The petition of wolves is

the slumber of shepherds.

If the shepherds sleep,

350 See! There is a great feast for the wolves.

If the herdsmen have slumbered and slept,

183

See! There is a great slaughter for the sheep.

How the lion is pleased to rend!

How the wolf wants to destroy!

355 The wolf, in that it is a destroyer,

does not rend in proportion to its hunger.

Though the lion eats [only] one,

it rends and casts aside many.

Though the wolf eats little,

360 its destruction is greater than its consumption.

Out of proportion to his usual practice,29

the judge is seizing and taking.

Out of proportion to his need,

the punisher dominates and elicits groans.30

365 They are drunk with gold, as if with blood;

As soon as they are satiated, they are hungry [again].

Injustice surpasses smoke;

See! It billows everywhere!

Smoke hurts the eyes;

370 Injustice blinds the mind.

From buying and selling,

29 30 ̇

184

brokers have multiplied.

Whenever a poor person buys,

he is brought to a broker.

375 The merchants of sin are more numerous

than the purchasers of righteousness.31

The coin is counted, effecting the transaction

from broker to broker.

A good which is worth a small coin

380 is marked up to one hundred.

From one coin it is marked up to one hundred,

because brokers became steps for it.

The Creator fashioned wine

within the vine and gave it freely.

385 But, a tavern keeper gives water

which spoils within basins for a high price.

He separates his diluted [wine] among the pitchers;

he pours on more and more water.

Deceit is present with the wine;

390 fraud is present with the oil.

He suddenly splashes out a stream [of wine;]

he fills the measure from the froth.

31 Reading with W along with Beck, against YPp.

185

He swirls and empties the measure [of oil]

so that the residue remains in it.

395 Through the double deficit which he accomplished,

he broke the heart of the widow.

He effected a loss as well as a profit,

since he bartered for a double liability.

For injustice increased through his deficit

400 and the truth decreased with his excess.

Through what was lacking in the measure,

the measure of injustice was increased.

Through the excess which was in the measure,

the measure of truth was impoverished.

405 His judgment is kept in court

when they measure as He measured. Cf. Mt 7:2, par.

In a courtroom, there are all sorts of measures,

because all sorts of measures are with injustice.

Indeed, our measures do not escape the notice

410 of that One who measured the great sea.

Neither do our weights escape the notice

of that Power which bore the mountains.

The Creator gave order to the sea,

because his measure is exact from eternity. HdF 28:5

186

415 [Our] judges could not

give order to small measures.

The Just One compared and balanced

summer and winter equally.

Judges, because they rob,

420 disorder ordinances and laws.

Nor can buying and selling

give order to the unjust.

The Creator raised up [the unjust]

to look on Him and become like Him. Cf. 1 Jn 3:2

425 If He has given order to creatures

let them give order to things.

See! We improperly emulate

the master, the teacher of proper things.

Creatures are utterly ordered;

430 our things are utterly disordered.

Natures persist steadily,

but laws are topsy turvy.

In opposition to the arrangement of His things

is the disorder of our things.

435 Thus, by creation He will judge

mankind which is the greatest [creation] of all.

187

Night and day are

teachers for our ignorance.

For they dominate and are dominated.

440 Yet they are just when they dominate.

Because the luminaries are harmonious,

they dominate and are dominated as well.

Because they are just and upright,

they bring measure to their course.

445 They are harmonious when they dominate each other

and they are just when they repay each other.

Night plunders day—

although nothing dominates it.

In all that domination,

450 all justice is cached.32

When one side diminishes

and his companion sees that he has grown weary,

he casts his wealth upon his companion—

he takes his hand and enriches him.

455 That recipient is also just,

for he does not withhold his gift.

The one incurring debt33 was diminishing;

188

the one repaying debt34 was increasing.

In them, goodness is depicted;

460 in them, justice is engraved.

Just like good people are dominated

and also just people are paid back.

When one of them has diminished,

he is filled by35 his companion.

465 Also, when the one increasing has increased,

he does not forget the one who is small.

The frauds36 are not like us;

the plunderers are not like us.

The unjust are not like us;

470 the turncoats37 are not like us.

Since the one who has increased has forgotten

his poor yoke-fellow;

the Creator set up a mirror,

so we might look at it and become like it.

475 He set [the mirror] in a bound nature;

He set us in unbounded authority,

33 ܘ̇ 34 ܘ 35 ܨ 36 ̈ 37 ̈ ܗ

189

so we would look at the just nature

in our will38 and become like it.

In one respect, we were like

480 those brothers of justice—39

their domination was pleasing to us;

their justice was insipid to us.

When they dominated, they made restitution,40

but when we dominated, we dominated again.

485 They have justice and kindness;

we have wickedness and avarice.

They reprove us every day

for the wrong which takes place every day.

For they repay each other

490 but we wrong each other.41

The one who has does not lend

and the one who borrows does not repay.

The borrowers have fraud;

the lenders have wickedness.

495 The one who lends requires interest;

38 Or, “by/with our will.” Beck translates as, “willentlich.” 39 i.e. the luminaries. 40 ̇ 41 Grammar altered for the sake of English felicity.

190

the one who borrows conceals the capital.

How poorly the former42 chooses

and the latter43 is worse.

With his satiety, the rich man is harsh;

500 with his hunger, the poor man is a fraud.

Perhaps, not even the one who becomes affluent

will choose to repay the borrower.

See! He is frequently setting traps [to see]

how to bring in profit.

505 Everyone is constructing pretexts [to see]

how to bring in profit.

Bribery becomes a bridge for us

to cross over and become rulers.

This was not done so we could judge correctly,

510 but so we could plunder greedily.

See! We learn every way

to find a way for our gratification.

Justice made measures,

lest domination should plunder.

515 She made weights as well,

lest cupidity be perpetrated.

42 43 ܬ

191

She made the kor44 within which

fraud and guile are exposed.

She made law and the court of law,

520 so injustice would be indicted there.

She made the church, so within her

all splendor45 would dwell.

See! Injustice is clothed with

the armaments which Justice forged.

525 See! With measures, domination;

and with weights, cupidity.

See! With the kor which hates fraud,

craftsmen have served fraud;

And in the court which prosecutes injustice,

530 judges have received bribes.

And [now] the splendor loving church,

See! laxity dwells therein!

So also the small wooden measure

has a trap set in it for the buyer.

535 The measure’s external height is tall;46

44 A unit of measurement for volume. However, Beck apparently reads the text as kūrā (“furnace”), instead of kōrā. Yet, while his reading is not impossible, it is not as faithful to the overarching measurement imagery of the passage. Nevertheless, the furnace image that Beck favors could work rather well in line 527. It is easy to imagine a furnace (kūrā) exposing fraud relating to metal plating and a standard measure (kōrā) exposing measurement fraud. 45 ܬܗܙ. This word can also signify “virtue” or “chastity.” 46 ܕ ܗܘ ܘܪ ܡܪ

192

The measure’s cavity is short and narrow.

The outside promotes an expectation of the inside

that abundance dwells on the inside.

But, when it comes [time] to empty [it],

540 the heart aches with astonishment.

The measure became a trap for silver:

it hunts and captures Mammon.47

The fleece produced from the flock,

the brokers have divided in two.

545 Those wolves did not rend

the garment of the True Lamb. Jn 19:23

The ewe in the field is unaware

that brokers have become her wolves.

Her clothing, which escaped from the wolves,

550 was torn to pieces by the brokers.

People have turned everything upside down;

water alone is right side up.

Not even the water has escaped;

with water we are drinking injustice.

47 Pp adds: It leads astray the heart of the buyer so that it is not troubled when it sees [the vessel]. But when the inside of the vessel is overturned, the one holding it is shocked.

193

555 See! In the founts are purifications,

and in the springs are ablutions. SJon 1747

Satan saw that God

sanctified the waters for forgiveness.

He defiled them, so through them we might put on

560 the evils which we had stripped off in them—

so on the waters which had blotted out our debts

he might record our debts for us.

Wise and crafty is our slayer,

who conquered us with the weapon of our Conqueror.48

565 Lamps are arranged at the spring

for a demon who hovers over the waters.

Through [this] light, darkness is bidden

to dwell in [the waters].

Bodies are washed in waters

570 over which a demon hovers.

Above the holy waters,

the waters of ablution fall.

Now, through which baptism

are the lost found?

575 There is one baptism in which a man

48 i.e. the light and the water mentioned in the following verses.

194

can find his loss. Virg 46:21ff

After he was found, if he becomes lost,

who will go out in search of him?

The diviner practices divination openly;

580 The sorcerer practices sorcery openly.

Justice is not on earth;

we chased her up to heaven.

Woe to us! Whither have we lifted her?

See! She is appealing before the Most High.

585 See! The ledgers are open before her,

so she might read out our indictment before Him. Reproof 3:39ff

She began to read without pause;

There is no end to her beginning.

She read out there the injustice of the old man,

590 who came to49 the grave without repenting.

She read out there the injustice of the youth,

whose ugly deeds [grew] with his growth.

She also read out the injustice of the young man,

whose wantonness preceded his marriage feast.

595 She also returned to read out the injustice

of his fornication [concurrent] with his marriage.

49 Reading with Pp

195

Along with his wife, he had a mistress;

and with his spouse, [bed] companions.50

She also read out the injustice of women,

600 young and old.

The old women stopped giving birth

and became pregnant and gave birth to all sorts of sin.

Babies are born after months;

but an unjust person [is born] every moment.

605 See! She read out there every injustice51

of the barren, married women.

She read out their divinations and their auguries

on behalf of their children and their husbands.

“How [long] will our sons live

610 and how [much] will we be loved?”52

Diviners captured their hearts

and Chaldeans captured what remained.

They killed themselves with debts

and laid waste to their husbands’ treasures.

615 They coupled53 disease to sickness,

because with their debts were their penalties.

50 Reading with Pp. 51 Reading with Pp. 52 Text has indirect speech, which I have translated as direct speech by changing the pronouns. 53 ܦ ܬ

196

Yet, through prayer, without cost, they were able

to acquire their sons and their husbands.

Prayer made Esther the most beloved

620 of all women before the King. Cf. Est 2:17

Also, with a fast more valuable than incense,

she pleased him with her temperance.

With ashes more profitable than oil,

her countenance shone before him.

625 She was drawn54 to her Lord

and lead her husband to Him.

Because her heart did not turn away from her Lord

her husband55 did not turn away from her.

Also, on account of her lifestyle, Rebecca

630 was loved by the discerning Isaac.

According to those just men of old,

a choice name was more precious than beauty;

and more precious than glamorous adornment

was a countenance of sobriety.

635 More pleasing than kohl and antimony56

was modesty to the eye.

54 Reading with Pp along with Beck. 55 ̇ ܬ 56 i.e. eye cosmetics.

197

More [pleasing] than a glamourous sandal

was a lifestyle of temperance.

More than children and sons,

640 they loved [their] lifestyle and customs.

At ninety years old, Abraham

loved childless Sarah. Cf. Gn 17:17

His soul spurned Hagar

who conceived injustice along with an infant. √ʿwl (twice)

645 But Sarah, although she was barren,

conceived truth within her.

Even though [these] righteous men loved

their wives as modest women,

they did not love them [in such a way]

650 that they could not see their faults.

Their love was an eye

which sees and examines matters,

since mixed with their love

was an understanding of discernment.57

655 Now, the love of the Most High,

they magnified above every [other] love.

Through it, they learned the manner and the degree

57 ܬܘܕ

198

they were loving and being loved.

Sometimes, they loved

660 more than what was proper.

Other times, they were loved58

more than what was fitting.

But this is an evil love

which expands beyond [the love] of God.

665 So Solomon used to love

more than what was proper.

So Joseph was loved considerably

more than what was fitting.

While they were loving and being loved,

670 [God] made them into a mirror for you.

A type is set for the one who loves you

and an illustration for the one whom you love,

lest you love foolishly

and [your lover] love rashly.

675 When you love, consider

the extent to which it is fitting.

*676a And when you are loved, recognize

*676b the extent to which it is proper.59

58 Translating 3rd, masc., plural, active verb as a passive. So also in line 667.

199

Knead into both loves

the leaven of the love of your Lord.

Limpid love can

680 see60 his loved ones’ blemishes.

Turbid love does not observe;

he does not blame, because61 he does not see.

Job loved his spouse;

he saw her blemish while loving her.

685 During62 that whole trial,

he did not turn away from helping her.

Whoever turns away while in love,

really hates and is unfeeling.

How can he love when he injures?

690 How can he love while he harms?

The love which instructs and corrects—

that is true love!

So also, the God who loved us

did not turn away from helping us.

695 If He had not chastised us,

59 Adding lines 676a-b from Pp. 60 Reading with Pp. 61 Reading with Pp. 62

200

then He would have hated us.

God loved the righteous

while reproving their faults. HdF 86:5

He loved Moses very much.

700 And along with His love, He looked at his fault.

The beauty which He found in him, he praised;

He rebuked the blemish which He saw in him. Ex 4:8ff?, Nm 20:6ff?

He loved David as His own heart, 1 Sm 13:14

but He rejected his offense. 2 Sm 12

705 His worshipers are like Him,

for their love is endowed with eyes.63

Jacob loved Rachel,

but her offense did not escape his notice.

Understanding was stored in his love,

710 because he knew how to love.

She came to show him her love;

he showed her his righteousness.64

With childbearing as a pretext, she made him hear

how much she was overcome with love for his love. Gn 30:1ff

715 With childbearing as a pretext, he showed her

63 Sg. 64 ܬ

201

how much he loves his God.

She came to show how much she loved;

she learned how much he loves.

He grew angry [and] showed his love

720 toward the Giver of Sons:

“Whether he gives or not

let our minds not be shaken.”

The land of the ploughman feared

that he would hate her for being infertile. Res 1:3

725 “Because of this, the ploughman hates [the land]”—

or so, she supposed this about him.

Indeed, the discerning one understood

that she was not to be reproached for being barren.

Rather, he reproached her for murmuring,65

730 because he thought she was a woman of faith.66

With this perceptive love,67

let marriage68 be cultivated.

With it, she69 was loving and being loved,

so she might correct and be corrected.

65 Reading with Pp. Y reads “despondency.” 66 67 ܕ 68 ܬܬ 69 The feminine pronouns in lines 733-742 have “marriage” as their grammatical antecedent, while referring metonymically to the faithful wife.

202

735 Let her not love as one who covers up

ugliness within her love.

Let not her love become ḥwbʾ

a treasury full of sins. ḥwbʾ

If she is pure in love for her husband,

740 but returns to divination—

although she is pleasing to her mate—

she has cheated70 on her Creator.

Our souls are betrothed

all of them as one to God. Virg 5:15

745 According to that type, He betrothed and married

the daughter of Abraham, His friend. Res 3:2

Do not treat lightly the disease of she

who transgressed against her husband.

It is as if she transgressed against

750 her Lord and God.

What is a husband exchanged for?

A thief71 and a fornicator.

What is God exchanged for?

A diviner or medium.

70 ܙ 71 Pp reads “adulterer.” Each of these words (/) could easily lead to the other through scribal error. However, the reading “thief” follows Ephrem’s reproof of these sexually faithful wives who nevertheless were squandering their husband’s wealth on purveyors of magical rites.

203

755 Do not cheat on your God.

Do not commit adultery against your mate.

You have only one husband;

You have only one hope.

The Evil One saw that the bed of sexuality

760 is altogether pure.

He disseminated in it divinations and ablutions,

so the pure bed would be defiled.

Since he could not bring crime up to it,

he brought another injustice up to it.

765 Since he saw that it was above adultery,

he brought a medium to it.

Since the adulterer does not come up to it,

the diviner is brought to it.

Since the fornicator has no authority over it,

770 a sorcerer is partnered to it.

The pure bed of sexuality—

See! It is plastered72 with defilement!

See! Marriage carries ṭʿynʾ

from the errant all kinds of blemishes. ṭʿyʾ

775 See! Divination is upon her mind

204

and ablutions upon her members.

The words of Chaldeans are in her ears;

all over her are magic knots and amulets.

The Evil One corrupted the upright;73

780 He tore them on all sides.

Those exalted above sexuality,

he disturbed with regard to the truth.

Those subject to sexuality,

he guided their feet to diviners.

785 He is defeated by true celibates;74

he is embarrassed by pure sexuality.

The cursed one stands in between;

he bites, scatters, and also kicks

that one who is near, with a deed

790 [and] the one far off, with a thought

—for he is armed with everything,

so he might conquer us in each and every thing—

the one who has, with cupidity;

the one who does not have, with pride;

795 the eater, with gluttony;

the faster, with listlessness;

73 ̈ ܬ 74 qaddišē

205

the one who commits adultery, with a sinful woman;

the one who is pure, with jealousy.

He slays the slayer with his own sword;

800 and the eloquent with his own tongue.

He slays the slack with a deed;

and the industrious with a thought.

He clouds the defiled with his mud

and the one who is limpid with envy.

805 Satan looked at God

who freely disperses his treasures.

The Evil One opened his treasury;

freely he scatters his possessions.

To one, he gave pride of spirit;

810 to another, a hard heart.

To one, he offered derision;

to another,75 mocking.

To one, he taught slander

to another, ostentation.

815 To one whose dough is holy,76

he lent a little leaven.

And the one who cultivated [and] purified his mind,

75 ܐ ܗ 76

206

he offered him a thorn seed.

The one who sits modestly,

820 he sits him down immodestly.

And the one who stands well,

[Satan] labors in him so he will stand wickedly.

But there is [another] in whom [Satan] is impaired

and there his stratagems are abashed.

825 He defeats mighty men and makes them bow,

but is brought low by the frail.

He is empowered among gluttons,

but is brought low by fasters.

He sets his traps on all sides

830 and is patient with his traps.

He is neither slothful nor weary,

because he hourly changes his traps.

He sets a myriad of traps

to capture one soul.

835 Woe to us! Such an athlete

stands against us in the contest.

Yet the victorious have their own rewards,

for through [their contest] their crowns increase.

His heart is with traps,

207

840 but ours is with possessions.

His reasoning is with snares,

but ours is with buildings.

He is wholly dedicated to his nets,

but our mind is with stelae.77

845 The soul is occupied with stelae

and Sin with nets.

His heart is with traps,

but ours is with Mammon.

He has no labor now,

850 because he captures us without labor.

Now, under compulsion we

are entering his nets.

For whenever someone buys

a hateful rank with a bribe,

855 thus he is under compulsion:

he sets a trap [and] falls in it.

Satan labored and scattered in us

evil habits at first.

Now, he captures [us] without labor,

860 since our own habit captures us.

77 ̈ . See CAL, entry 2.

208

Woe to us! How long have we delayed?

Woe to us! With what have we been weakened?

There is woe for us in his persistence;

There is benefit for us in his weakness.

865 As crafty as the Evil One is with his snares,

he is weak with his compulsion.

For if he had [access to] compulsion,

he would have no need for stratagems.

But his stratagems teach us

870 that he does not lead us with compulsion.

So, who would not give

himself a benefit in the contest?

Since the contest is according to your78 will,

so it conquers and is also defeated. Virg 3:8

875 For the athletes’ contest

[consists in] their crowns’ adversary.

The athlete wants to conquer,

but his rival79 conquers him by force.

However, the athlete who is our adversary—

880 his power remains through our will. Nis 56:1

78 Reading with Pp. 79 ܗ

209

The power of our freedom is like

the hands of Moses in battle: Ex 17:11ff

to the degree that he was willing, unto the Amalekites

he was lending power and strength.

885 Through power borrowed from Moses,

the Amalekites were conquering there.

With a visible battle, He depicted

the hidden power of our freedom:

upon the willing of our freedom,

890 the power of our enemy depends.

Our willing grants to him

power as well as weakness.80

When we are negligent, he is strong;

when we pray, he is weak. Nis 55:28ff

895 Indeed, who will instruct [us] about

the one who is defeated by the Evil One?

It is the one who gives power to his murderer

to conquer with [this] power from [the giver].

Through us, the Evil One slays us;

900 through us, the Weak One conquers us.

80 The polar pair / ܬ is a favorite of Ephrem and exhibits his propensity toward consonance.

210

Our will became bonds for us;81

our possessions became chains for us.

Indeed, he chains us with our own will

and binds us with our own possessions.

905 See! He binds people

with82 the bonds which they gave him.

See! Our freedom is chained

with the chains83 which [freedom’s] hands forged.

He saw that marriage is pure;

910 See! He is leading it astray and defiling it.

He saw that celibacy is exalted;

See! He is seducing it and bringing it down.

He established a disturbance for humanity,

so it would be obstructed here and there.

915 The ship of the good merchants

is passing through and out between waves.

See! It trades for victories

among waves full of disturbance.

From the death-filled tempest,

920 it acquires life.

81 Reading with Pp. 82 Reading with Pp. 83 Reading with Pp.

211

A great ascent was prepared

by God for man,

so that bodily beings might ascend

to become spiritual like the heavenly host.

925 A good person ascends on every step;

an evil person descends on every path.

See! [On] the step of virginity,

virgins84 ascend to heaven.

See! On the step of celibacy,

930 the celibates also are exalted.

On the pure step of sex,

marriage is exalted.

The Evil One saw that on every step

the body ascends to heaven.

935 See! He is hanging on [the body] every weight,

so it might be brought down from that height.

See! He is multiplying obstructions for it,

so it might be disturbed from its journey.

He produces slippery spots on the steps;

940 he points out desires on the earth.

To make our heart turn from the height

84 masc.

212

and look upon the earth’s depth,

he lured our reasoning from the height

and directed it toward a great depth.

945 See! Our gaze is upon buildings

and our gaze is upon possessions.

See! Our heart is upon gains

and upon transitory profits.

From near and far,

950 he made our debt85 sprout and spread.

On land, he disorders the paths;

On sea, he agitates the course.

In harbors and inns,

merchants seek wealth.

955 Inside valleys and mountains,

everyone searches for gold.

We went far in search

of unenduring profits.

When gold flees from us,

960 our mind runs after it.

The truth which runs to us,

everyone flees from it.

85 Reading as ḥawban in contrast to the “transitory profits” in line 948, but Beck apparently reads as ḥubban (unsere Liebe).

213

The entirety of pleasures and86 ugly deeds

are not sown in a single person.

965 They are sprinkled variously—

all of them through all humanity.

For the Creator scattered

desires in creation—

not all of them in one man,

970 lest he perish;

nor is he distant from of all of them,

lest he be idle.

Tested through desires is

the victory of the victorious.

975 For the inclination with which we are yoked

is the opponent in our contest.

From desire there is a contest,

but from the contest there is a crown.

Thus, the pleasures are sprinkled—

980 all of them through all humanity,

so a man might conduct

a contest within his mind.

One is gratified with gluttony,

86 Reading with Pp.

214

but does not delight in adultery.

985 Another is gratified with ostentation,

but does not delight in theft.

One is overcome by desire for gold,

but despises fleshly desire.

One is gratified with praise,

990 but another with delicacies.

One craves wine,

and another craves honor.

One is far from adultery,

but permits mockery within himself.

995 One is gratified with reviling,

and another with a gift.

One serves strife,

and another slander.

One is exalted above some injustice,

1000 but is completely sunk in another.

One is free from some blemish,

but is completely marked by another.

One is exalted above some trap,

but is cast in another pit.

1005 Thus, many are

215

the numerals of sins.

Also, their numerous sums

are comprehensible through their reduction.

Everything’s multiplicity

1010 is experienced through reduction.

Indeed, whenever the Evil One chains

a man with desires;

he chains him with what gratifies,

so his bond would please him.

1015 Since he is gratified with his bond,

he does not cast off his bond.

And because he is chained with his own gratification,

he will remain forever in his chains.

For the one who chains us87 understands

1020 how and with what to chain.

For he knows that if he chains us

with a displeasing chain,

the mind will cut off

his chain quickly.

1025 He binds everyone with his own gratification—

87 ܳ ܳ Reading as a nomen agentis (ܪܽ ܐܳ ) unattested in the lexica, instead of the common place noun ܪܽ ܐܰ . See the parallelism in lines 1081 and 1083, where the word is employed in a similar context and is parallel to ܪ instead of .

216

however and with whatever gratifies.

But our freedom is authoritative, cf. Virg 3:8

since it cuts off its own chain from itself.

With assorted chains,

1030 with sundry bonds,

we are chained and gratified;

we are bound and proud.

Indeed, the one chained with jealousy

is not bound with adultery.

1035 The fool supposes that he is free,

but he is chained with mockery.

Since he is not bound with thievery,

he supposes that he is not bound at all.

Everyone is oblivious to his own chain,

1040 also everyone is oblivious to his own bond;88

like a drunkard who is intoxicated and bound,

without even realizing that he is bound.

Indeed, through his wine he became oblivious to his chain

and through his intoxication, his bonds.89

1045 Examine, else be cross-examined,90

88 Reading with Pp. 89 Reading with Pp. 90 ܠ ܐ̇ ܐ ܘܐ ܠ ܘܐ

217

about your chain and your bond.

If the chain is strong,

how is it discounted91 in your eyes?

But if the chain is weak,

1050 where is your mighty power?

It is a greater shame

before the contest’s audience,

when your power is subjugated and cast down

under weak chains.

1055 But the one chained with

a strong and cruel92 chain—

maybe something will quickly convince [him]

that the chain is too strong for him.

But the one who is chained and subjugated

1060 as with a spider web—

his shame is the greatest,

for what sort of chain conquers him?

See! The weakling laughs

at someone roughly bound.

1065 Meanwhile, he is shamefully perishing

from the injustice underestimated in his eyes.

91 92 Reading with Pp.

218

If his chain is strong,

let us not laugh at the one who is chained.

But if his chain is weak,

1070 it is fitting for everyone to laugh at him.

All of us have laughed at each other,

but the Evil One is laughing at all of us. HdF 47:5, 50:6

He binds and also laughs,

because we suppose that we are not even bound.

1075 He chains and also intoxicates,

because we suppose that we are not even chained.

Whoever is chained feels [it];

whoever is bound senses [it].

The mind is chained, but does not sense [it];

1080 it is chained and bound, but does not feel [it].

O, how wise is the one who chains us,

since we did not sense that we were chained.

O, how skilled is the one who binds us,

since we did not recognize that we were bound.

1085 His arrows are [such] sweet arrows

that a man can die while his soul [remains] within.93

Whoever is chained is silent;

93 ܐ ܬ ܕ

219

whoever is bound is idle.

O, how subtle is the one who chains us,

1090 for we are both chained and loosed.

The mind is chained [and kept] from the truth,

but it is loosed and running toward injustice.

It is chained when it should go toward love,

but loosed and running with jealousy.

1095 It is chained and kept from good deeds;

it is loosed and serving evil deeds.

Also, the one who chains us is wise;

he is crafty like one who chains.

For he permits running toward falsehood,

1100 but prohibits running toward the truth.

He permits running to the left

and prohibits the right.

Blessed is the one who keeps himself

from crossing over to the left.

1105 Neither with a little nor with a lot,

does he give his reasoning to the left,

so that with the sons of the right

the Lord of the Right will call him.

220

Both on the right and the left,

1110 symbols are depicted, my brothers.

Just as you are sons of the right,

you will not cross over to the left.

As you stand on the right

of the Lord the entire right,

*1114a so also, you beware

*1114b of that left side.94

1115 Do not cross over to sample

sins, O sons of the left.95

If you cross over to the left,

even if a little, you are a son of the left.

If Satan absolutely

1120 does not cross over to the right,

*1120a How is it that you throng daily

*1120b to falsehood, O son of the left?96

That injustice, which is underestimated in your eyes,

will carry you over to the left.

*1122a And with that blemish which his mockery discounts,

*1122b you are destroying yourself.97

94 Adding lines 1114a-b from Pp. 95 Reading with YPp against Beck’s correction (i.e. “sins of the sons”), because it does not seem necessary. Ephrem seems to be rhetorically addressing his audience as “sons of the left” to instill a sense of shame over their sins. Furthermore, the manuscript tradition does indeed fit the meter (contra Beck). See also the similar expression in line 1120b. 96 Adding lines 1120a-b from Pp.

221

For on the left are appointed

sinners, high and low.

1125 If you cross over through a single sin,

all of you crosses over with it.

The discerning sons of the right

in everything are cautious

of the left, which on all occasions98

1130 would steal the heart of simple folk.99

The Evil One is not distressed that

he chains us with assorted [chains].

He is altogether pleased that

he has chained us with sundry [chains].

1135 With every stratagem, he endeavors

for everyone to labor under his yoke.

God, also, with every opportunity

places his yoke upon everyone.

For He distributed and balanced burdens

1140 and measured and lined up100 inns,

so everyone might carry according to his ability101

while traveling as far as he is able.

97 Adding lines 1122a-b from Pp. 98 There is an unusually high level of enjambment between lines 1128 and 1129. 99 ̈ Y reads . Pp reads ̈ . 100 ̇ 101

222

For at the time when

the ancient tent of meeting102 was erected,

1145 He provided an abundance of life

for rich and poor,

since everyone could bring his offering

in proportion to his possessions. Ex 35:20-29; 25:1-9

One was offering gold

1150 and another offered silver.

One was offering beryl

and another pearls.

A poor man offered [goat’s] hair

and his neighbor, prepared hides.103

1155 A rich woman gave fine linen

and the widow, dyed yarn.

By rich and poor,

the holy tent was adorned.

By all of them, it was adorned.

1160 So also, it adorned all of them.

So, like the offerings which had been

accepted as it was being erected,

were the offerings which were being

102 lit. “temporal tent.” 103

223

accepted after it had been erected.

1165 For He had accepted the prayers

of rich and poor,

of sinners and the righteous

to show them how

he had accepted from their treasuries

1170 all adornments along with all riches.104

So also He had accepted

from their treasuries spiritual things:

their fasts according to their ability;

their prayers as is appropriate for them.

1175 Their spiritual offerings,

He painted upon physical [offerings];

so that with something visible, he might guide

the simple105 to invisible things.

The rich man offered a bull,

1180 but the poor man, a young dove.

And He balanced and made

the young dove comparable to the bull,

though the offering was lighter

than the adjacent offering.

104 Lines 1165-70 stands out as an unusual sentence with regard to rhythm and length. See Chapter 3. 105 ̈

224

1185 When the owner of an offering

is lighter than a righteous [owner],

those offerers become

balancing weights for their offerings.

For whenever one man is lighter

1190 than another in righteousness,

his offering also becomes lighter,

though his offering was heavier.

So also, with the heart of the widow,

He compared and balanced out her pennies. Mk 12:41-44, par.

1195 The rich man’s talent weighed light

on account of his light lifestyle.

The widow’s pennies weighed heavy

on account of her weighty lifestyle.

Indeed, just as God

1200 on every occasion would give us life,

so also Satan

on every occasion would slay us.

Just as two pennies

can give life to the soul,

1205 so also the mocking of two words

can destroy the soul.

225

Just as with one word,

the thief who acknowledged lived,

so also with one word,

1210 whoever mocks can perish.

With one mocking word,

“Miriam became white as snow with leprosy.” Nm 12:10

If106 Miriam, who was a prophetess,

became leprous through mockery,

1215 then if another woman should mock,107

Gehenna would be [too] small for her.

Miriam correctly108 said

that God spoke with her, Cf. Ex 12:2

but her correctness was rejected,

1220 because she spoke with mockery.

For the one who mocks correctly,

his correctness is full of wrong doing.109

*1222a For either you should reprove correctly

*1222b or [at least] not mock wickedly.110

106 Reading with Pp. 107 Pp adds: what woe is sufficient for her? Through one who became leprous, He depicted for us a mirror-like example that if our tongue should harm 108 109 Reading with Pp.

226

For either you should correct openly

or [at least] not strike secretly.

1225 Your correctness is rejected,

if some wrong doing is mingled with it.

Your celibacy is rejected,

if defilement is mingled with it.

Also, your purity is rejected,

1230 if contamination cleaves to it.

Faith is rejected,

if it turns toward augury.

Also unity is rejected,

if division cleaves to it.

1235 Also a gift is rejected,

when ostentation is mingled with it.

Prayer is rejected, if

pride is mixed with it.

The fast is rejected, in which

1240 heartfelt hatred is hidden.

Limpid love is rejected,

when it is clouded with jealousy.

Indeed, gaze at natural things HdF 35:1;

110 Adding 1222a-b from Pp Rahm.

227

and learn Scriptural things.111 Virg 27-30 passim

1245 Truth’s beauty is exceedingly ugly,

when it overlays falsehood.

Indeed, food is deadly,

if poison is hidden within.

Pure flesh is unclean for us,

1250 since it was contaminated with sacrifices.

So, through these visible things,

we ought to see invisible things. HdF 76:11-14

If these pure things

are rejected through their opposites,

1255 then also invisible things

are rejected through their own natures.112

With Miriam he painted an example,

so you might learn the truth from her and through her.

Openly, she became absolutely leprous,

1260 for secretly she had absolutely sinned.

Through open harm, she saw

the secret harm within.

Through a bodily blemish, she came to know

that ugly blemish of the soul.

111 Reading with Pp. 112 ̈ . Reading with YPp, against Beck and Rahm ̈ “by their damages.”

228

1265 Through that disgusting blemish, she learned

that derision is quite disgusting.113

Through ugly leprosy, she learned

that mocking is quite ugly.

The body became a mirror for her

1270 for that soul hidden within.

Through a distorted body, she learned

how much the mind was distorted.

Through her outward person,

she saw her inward person.

1275 Leprosy was corrupting the outward

and mockery, the inward.

Her outward blemish became for her

the herald of the inward.

Since she was divided against her members, √plg

1280 her body became divided against her, √plg

so you might learn its sin from her and through her

and also we [might learn] unity through her.

For just as it was hateful to her

when her body was divided against her, √plg

1285 so it is hateful to God

113 Pp ends here, p adds “this homily is incomplete.”

229

when a man is divided against his neighbor. √plg

Therefore, the body is divided √plg

against the man with every disease.

His own members are divided against him, √plg

1290 because he was divided against his loved ones, √plg

so that by the division of his own members √plg

he might be reconciled with his neighbors.

Consider the paralytic whose sins √šry

paralyzed his members. √šry, Mt 9:2ff, par.

1295 For [Jesus] forgave his sins,

which had justly condemned him.

Indeed, his members were paralyzed √šry

because he had dismissed and sent out his helps. √šry

Since he broke the commandment, √šry

1300 his members were paralyzed. √šry

When he loosened the love of God, √šry

the mind’s great girdle,

slackened was His body’s power,

the member’s tight girdle.

1305 His body became openly divided, √plg

because his heart was secretly divided. √plg

Division divided the unity, √plg (twice)

230

because he divided his reasoning. √plg

One half became divided against the other half. √plg (thrice)

1310 because he was altogether divided against someone. √plg

Where there were divisions √plg

of injustice in secret,

there in the open were

also divisions of justice. √plg

1315 Miriam became grandiloquent114

in the camp when she became leprous, √šry

because her tongue quarreled

with the humble man who prayed for her.

Marriage mocked Nat. 14:19,

1320 the exalted115 Celibacy. Pros Ref 2:75:40

But Marriage became leprous

and Celibacy purified her.

So [Marriage] might come to know herself through her leprosy

and her neighbor through her purification.

1325 And through the forgiveness, which [Celibacy] gave [Marriage],

she might learn what is [Celibacy’s] triumph.

And through her purification, [Marriage] might understand

114 ܪ 115 punning on (Miriam).

231

how exalted is [Celibacy’s] great gradation.

And through the gift which she gave [Marriage],

1330 she might come to know what is His treasury.

When Celibacy was praying

for Marriage herself,

then she came to know how

God spoke with [Celibacy].

1335 For when she delivered [Marriage] from the scourge

she came to know that [Celibacy] is more beloved than [Marriage].

Because she did not know herself, she was struck;

so she might pay attention to her deliverance.

Because she supposed that she was also near,

1340 she learned how distant she was.

And because she supposed that she had received much,

she relearned how to receive breath.

The punisher who punished

that mockery of the prophetess

1345 will not turn away from the mockery,

which foolish women incited against him.

Moses carried out all sorts of exploits,

but his tongue slipped a little. Cf. Nm 20

232

His stammering did not injure him

1350 like his failing lips.

A little failing deprived him

of that promised land.

A great and fearful sea

did not bar the way before him.

1355 A little failing held him back,

when it became an obstacle before him.

If Moses, who was a god, Cf. Nm 7:1

was barred by one little word,

how much more will He bar from the kingdom HdF 15:11; 58:9

1360 the tongue daily unsheathed? SdF 6:458ff

A holy fire consumed

two hundred holy116 priests.117 Nm 16:35

They were consecrated through their lifestyle,

but were desecrated through their words.

1365 If a fire consumed them,

why does our tongue118 voice contempt?119

The earth swallowed the loose-lipped,120

116 ̈ . With this word, Ephrem likely intends to indicate that the priests were “celibate.” 117 Lines 1359-1362 has strong consonance with the consecutive consonants ܟ, ܠ, ܡ. 118 Reading with Rahm. 119 120 ̈ . Reading with Rahm.

233

who unsheathed their tongues.

It left alone the defiled and the adulterers,

1370 but swallowed the unsheathed tongues.

The sea swallowed the Egyptians,

but dry land swallowed the contentious.

It was a vain word that the mighty man

spoke during the days of famine. 2 Kgs 7:2ff

1375 He gave an account for mocking,

when “the people trampled him at the gate.” 2 Kgs 7:17

With this related rule,121

may the word of our Lord be honored by us:

“For every vain word,

1380 a man will give an account.” Mt 12:36

On every occasion, the Evil One

seizes feeble people.

One is seized like a debtor,

but another is seized like a guarantor.

1385 Even nature teaches us

that the one perishes on account of the other.

For though [the guarantor] has no debt,

he is sunk with the debtor.

121 ܕ

234

This is a type of sinners,

1390 both the unjust and the righteous.

The righteous man is pronounced innocent through what he has

and is found guilty through what he does not have.

[The following is] like the innocent guarantor

who is sunk with the debtor:

1395 if a liar should tell

a truthful man a tale

in which he mocked and scoffed,

in which he calumniated or slandered

[and] if the righteous man is pleased with

1400 wicked scoffing and mocking

then his silence has become for him a guarantor

that the calumniator rightly scoffed.

His quiet repose has become for him

a witness to what was spoken.

1405 Be instructed by the armed forces

of a just and mighty king:

Imagine that a king who has acted foolishly

is reviled—albeit justly.

None of [the forces] can stand by

1410 [and] listen to the kingdom’s disgrace.

235

If one were to stand by and listen to [the reviler],

there is one judgment for both.

One dies on account of his tongue;

and the other, on account of his ear.

1415 The liar tells you a tale

and your ear inclines to him.

The death which pours forth from his mouth

is emptied into your ear canal.

See! The speaker’s deadly poison

1420 is spread throughout the listener.

The leaven which he received from him,

he adds and kneads it in.

Where did death enter

when Eve spoke with the Serpent?

1425 From the ear there enters

the deadly Accuser. Eccl 49:7

The Evil One can destroy

the silent through the garrulous.122

The one not killed with a deed,

1430 he slays with a thought.

Demons spoke the truth,

122 Rahm adds, “The one whom he cannot kill through his mouth / he slays him by his ear.”

236

but our Savior did not heed them. Lk 4:41

For the True One did not want

to be confirmed by liars.

1435 The preachers of truth preached

true things about the True One.123

Why did the apostles not heed

that demon124 who praised them?

The bitter one’s voice was bitter

1440 to their sweet ears.

The bitter one was no more bitter

than his counterfeit praise.

If his praise is a killer,

how much more his slander!

1445 If his sweetness is a deadly poison,

who would sample his bitterness?125

He robs you in this way:

he tells tales as if true.

For the demons insincerely126

1450 said to the Messiah, “you are the Messiah.”127 Lk 4:41

123 Cf. Virg 1:18-19, where Ephrem similarly clusters √ŠRR in contrast to √DGL. 124 Beck hesitantly suggests that this is Simon Magus (Acts 8:9ff). This seems to me to be the most likely option. 125 ܬܘ. This word can also mean “venom.” 126 ܪ

237

[As for] why he did not accept them,

this example will instruct you:

Good and evil roots

drink from the same rain.

1455 In evil [roots, rain] becomes evil

though it is good in its nature.

The serpent eats sweetness,

and transmutes it to bitterness.

And if the transmuter pours it out,

1460 woe to whoever accepts it.

Also, from the liar’s “truth,”

a deadly poison comes out.

For bitterness is hidden

within his sweet words.

1465 Let the serpent instruct you, who sweetened

his tongue toward the perfect [apostles].

Also, let the serpent instruct you, who sweetened

his tongue toward the Knower of All.

That bitter man sweetened his mouth

1470 and kissed the Giver of All Life. Mt 26:48ff, par.

127 In the Peshitta (but not in the old Syriac Gospels), the demons of Luke 4:41 proclaim, “You are the Messiah, the Son of God.”

238

If he deceived the Knower of All,

how much more you, a lesser mind.

Now, be instructed by something else,

which is disgusting as well as alarming.

1475 If someone gives you a drink

in a foul vessel, it is disgusting,

When you drink from it, you loathe128

that vessel’s foul taste.

Although the drink is sweet,

1480 it takes on the vessel’s taste.

What is more disgusting than a liar,

except the one who listens to him?

What is filthier than a deceiver,

excepts the one who heeds him?

1485 The one who loves filth

is altogether filthy and so is his reasoning.

Therefore, the pure129 [apostles] did not heed him,

nor did the Lord of Purity.

Our Lord gave himself to death,

1490 but did not give His ear to the liar.

128 ̇ . Lit. “Your drinking of it loathes….” 129 Perhaps there is a wordplay here on the two vocalizations of ̈ (nqedē, nāqdē): clean/shepherds.

239

His mouth drank vinegar, Mt 26:48

but His ear did not taste falsehood.

He gave his mouth to Iscariot,

but did not give his ear to the deceiver. Virg 3:5

1495 Give your mouth to kiss [a deceiver],

but do not give him your ear.

For if you give your mouth,

the breath of your mouth will reprove him.

But if you give your ear,

1500 the flavor of his words will kill you.

From deadly poison, distance yourself—

from its scent as well as its taste.

You flee from smoke,

but you listen to a liar.

1505 You recoil from a bad smell,

but sit next to a deceiver.

Smoke hurts the eyes;

derision harms the hearer.

If a bad smell130 hurts,

1510 the mocking voice is worse.

130 Reading with Rahm along with Beck.

240

It is fitting to guard

each of the senses from its contrary.

Your member is guarded from adultery?

Guard your mouth from mockery.

1515 Your mouth cannot commit adultery?

It can slander and lie.

If one member is righteous,

because131 you emancipated it from its contrary,

and another member sins,

1520 this slain [member] will slay you.

If your ear will incline,

there is an example to instruct you.

Consider the warrior,

who covers his flesh with armor.

1525 Suppose he is suddenly struck

between the joints of the breastplate,

[as] Ahab, also, took an arrow

between the joints of [his] breastplate. 1 Kgs 22:34

If death enters

1530 from narrow chinks of armor,

how much more will death enter,

131 Reading with Rahm along with Beck.

241

from the wide-open ear.132

For the ear’s opening is as large

as the death which entered there.

1535 See! The deluge which entered there

is flooding all the senses.

The word is largest of all,

but the ear’s opening accommodates it. HdF 57:4, 9

Let it have a gate and a gate keeper,

1540 lest slander should enter.

Do not underestimate a deadly poison,

[supposing] it too small to kill.133

Do not underestimate mockery,

[supposing] it too small to destroy.

1545 May the game-hunter teach you

not to underestimate what is small.

Imagine a bird [trying to] escape,

but caught by its claw. Nat 22:33

The force of its wings is brought low

1550 by the tip of [its] feeble claw.

And although the rest is outside the trap—

the rest is outside, but inside [nonetheless].

132 ܪܬ ܪܬ ܕܐ. 133 ̇ ܪ ܙܕ ܕ. Lit. “…that because it is small, it does not kill.”

242

About diseases and sicknesses,

who is capable of speaking?

1555 For through a neglected disease, there could

come heinous torment.

Again, be corrected by Scripture

as well as by nature.

For the import of both is the same,

1560 if you will listen with discernment.

The blessed apostle put

murderers on par with cursers.134

and the greedy with adulterers, [saying,]

“They shall not inherit the Kingdom.” 1 Cor 6:9, Cf. Eph 5:5

1565 In the scale of justice,

he reckoned alike their relative weights.

Let us search in the prophets,

[to see] whether he truly compared

those underestimated [sins]

1570 with those grave [sins].

Why did He curse Canaan?

Because he laughed at that righteous man. Gn 9:20ff

Indeed, He did not judge him on account of his injustice

134 Reading singular as plural.

243

nor did he curse him for murder.

1575 On account of that despicable ridicule,

he received a harsh sentence.

And on account of the tongue’s derision,

he received bitter woe.

All the thoughts were limpid,

1580 but mockery clouded them.

All the members were pure,

but the tongue slew them.

Since you found in the literal sense

the word which the blessed [apostle] wrote,

1585 with that which was truly affirmed

believe those which were written.

For if, on account of his laughter,

he received such woe,

who will not be afraid of the ridicule

1590 through which curses are acquired?

It deprived him of blessings

and pushed him toward curses.

He depicted that coming judgment

which befalls the one who derides:

1595 He will expel him from the kingdom

244

and he will turn to inherit Gehenna.

But if the Evil One tricks135 you

into joking136 as if with love,

[remember that] Ham, also, jokingly

1600 derided and inherited curses.

Listen to the apostle who warned

of ridicule, for he knew what it is.137

If not, its odor will overwhelm you;

even some of its flavor will have made you stink.

1605 For perhaps from its faint flavor,

you will fully know how much it is.

Whoever derides a vessel,

derides its craftsman as well. Cf. Rom 9:19ff

For mockery leaps up

1610 and comes to the creator.

But since the deceiver knows

he cannot persuade a tongue

to mock the craftsmanship

of the All-Knowing Knower,

135 ̇ 136 ̇ 137 Ephrem appears to be thinking of the content of both Ephesians 4:29-5:27 and 1 Corinthians 6, without having a particular verse in mind.

245

1615 he introduces another way for it

to deride while being unaware:

as if joking affectionately,

it laughs at every blemish,

so derision might leap up and cross over

1620 from creature to creator.

Upon outward ridicule

you gaze as if innocent.

But what hidden deceit

is buried there, you do not know.

1625 But knowing righteous Noah

makes it known to one not knowing.138

He decreed and excluded him from blessings,

so you, like a wise man, might know

that unto the Lord of Blessings

1630 this derision was offered.

He gave back to him curses,

so through [these] curses He might reveal to you

that an unseen curser was hidden

in that ridicule which you underestimated.

1635 The apostle also decreed and said, Cf. 1 Cor 6:10,

138 There is a crescendo of consonance and repeated roots beginning in 1611 and reaching its climax in this couplet.

246

that not even cursers will live. Eph 5:3ff

Let us search in the [Scriptural] archives

[to discover] whether this is really so.

So even you might come to know from them

1640 what cursers have inherited.

Indeed, what was the offense

of Shimei, the Benjamite? 2 Sm 16:7ff

It was not adultery,

nor even theft.

1645 It was an invective, in which

dwelt slander.

Wherever there is contention,

slander is carried out within it.

What happened there will become clear;

1650 what did not happen there will be narrated.

For, anger is wracked with labor pains;

she conceives and births every word.

Her offspring is like the bow’s,

which kills the innocent for no reason.

1655 With this anger, Shimei

reviled the humble king. 2 Sm 16:7ff

247

He held him responsible for executing Saul’s household,

even though [David] had spared him from the execution.

Since [Shimei] became a witness improperly,

1660 the just [king] judged him properly. 1 Kgs 2:36ff

[Solomon] ordered him not to cross the boundary

and [Shimei] promised not to cross.

He crossed it and broke his promise,

so the oath-breaker put himself to death.139

1665 For when the liar was exposed,

the slander which he perpetrated ceased.

When his falsehood came to light,

his slander melted away.

And when his accusation was proved false,

1670 his offense was punished.

Since he unsheathed his tongue and slew

the innocent140 [king], as if with a sword,

an unsheathed sword came out to confront

that one who had unsheathed his tongue.

1675 In this world, his destruction.

In that coming [world,] his torment.

139 . Reading as nākes from √nks, whereas Beck appears to have read as nakkes from √kss. 140 ̇ ܙ. Ephrem likely intends his audience to simultaneously hear the sense “innocent” along with the ubiquitous royal honorific, “victorious.”

248

Whoever would be a curser,

let him be tormented by two deaths.

He treated the greedy and cursers on par

1680 with adulterers and murderers.

Consider that greed stripped

that first-born of his birthright. Gn 25:24ff

You also have a birthright:

your mind’s stability.141 Addai 29:3; Qid 2:2

1685 Do not sell your stability

on account of your greed.

Your stability is your birthright;

do not sell it like Esau.

[The mind] is the greatest [part] of man,

1690 but it is exchanged for nothing.

For nothing it is exchanged,

because it is sold for a full mouth.

If you destroy your stability,

in childhood, you are like Esau.

1695 Hear now also this wonder:

words overcame deeds.

141 ܪܕ ܗܬܘ. Beck translates, “den wahren Glauben.”

249

And faith overcame

nature and birth.

A birthright, which could not be taken,

1700 the word entered and took it up.

Although [Jacob] did not really take it,

he assumed it by faith.

For [the word’s] work was not able

to come to be bodily.

1705 By faith, it was able

to come to be spiritually.

For how could they

reenter the womb so that from there Cf. Jn 3:4

Jacob would come forth as the firstborn

1710 and be swaddled in all blessings?

Because they did not enter the visible womb,

they entered that invisible womb.

Faith and Oath

filled the role of birth.

1715 Because bodily birthright

was spiritually taken,

oaths stripped [and] gifted

and faith accepted it.

250

An oath was with the giver

1720 and faith, with the receiver.

Oh, the miracle which was performed

between buyer and seller!

The stripped man did not sense that he had stripped,

nor did the clothed man sense that he was clothed—

1725 though that stripped man was stripped

and that clothed man was covered.

The youths who became merchants

sold merchandise unnaturally.

Oh, how did Esau sell

1730 a birthright, which cannot be taken off?

Oh, how did Jacob receive

a covering, which cannot be put on?

How did [the birthright] fly from Esau,

with whom it remained, indeed?

1735 How did it come to Jacob,

when it had not fled from [Esau]?

But, if the merchandise of youth

is delineated142 by faith,

how can we come to search out

142

251

1740 the birth of that Holy One?

So also, Jacob found

that birthright of Manasseh Gn 48

and he took it and extended it out to Ephraim,

so it would become for him a robe of glory.

1745 The birthright is full of types,

because it is entirely depicted in ears.

It has many facets,

since it faces every side.

Depicted with it, is baptism;

1750 drawn with it, is faith.

Imprinted with it, is celibacy

and praiseworthy virginity.

Jacob bought it at a price,

but gave143 it freely to Ephraim.

1755 It was not taken from Manasseh

on account of an offense;

nor was it given to Ephraim

on account of righteousness.

The gift belongs to the giver;

143 The verb is plural. Perhaps, it is used impersonally (Cf. Beck, “…gab man…”). Or perhaps, Ephrem imagined Joseph (or God?) participating in the giving. On this possibility, see Virg 21:11. Or perhaps, the plural is a mistake in Beck or in the manuscript tradition.

252

1760 no one can blame him.

He demonstrated his authority here:

no one hinders His will.

The [Jewish] people cannot blame Him

for giving the birthright to the peoples.

1765 But if they lay blame for this,

let them lay blame for Manasseh’s [birthright].

He took from that man, though he did no wrong

to show how much authority He holds.

But He took from them, because they did wrong

1770 to show how righteous He is.

But if one who did no wrong

cannot blame him for taking,

how will they blame him for taking

the birthright from the crucifiers?

1775 So great is the gift,

with which the birthright was bought!

Who would take an oath and break

what Esau had not broken?

If without breaking oath Esau

253

1780 is rejected, on other grounds,144

what woe will suffice

for one who daily breaks oath?

Consider the contract which existed there

between the dishonest man and the honest man.145

1785 The honest man was faithful to it

and the dishonest man abided by it.

Do not break the contract which you made

with God during your [time of] affliction.

Now if Esau who was injured

1790 did not break the existing contract,

how should you break the contract

which was for your aid?

If Herod held true to

the contract with which he killed himself, Mt 14:9, par.

1795 do not break the contract which you made

for the life to come.

Therefore, let us distance ourselves, my brothers,

from every hateful act.

Be afraid of sinful words,

144 . 145 ܪ ܕ.

254

1800 because words exist in reality.146

The word entered and took away

the birthright, also in reality!

The word by itself

has filled the role of birthright.

1805 Therefore, reviling can

fill the role of murder.

Also, the tongue can

fill the role of the sword.

An unclean thought can

1810 fill the role of adultery. Cf. Mt 5:27

Hidden deceit can

fill the role of a trap.

Wicked counsel can become

like a deadly poison for the listener.

1815 If Esau with a word

could strip his birthright,

a man with an ugly word can

strip and cast aside his chastity.

Through dishonesty, a man strips off

1820 [and] casts aside the truth of his covenant.

146 ̈ ̇ ܘܗ̈ ̈ . Or, “words exist/came to be in deeds.” See also the parallel in the following line.

255

If a pagan147 through a word

strips off his faith

and someone else, who professes [Christ],

through a word puts it back on again,

1825 then the word standing in between

fills the role of action.

Thus, an ugly thought can

become an ugly action.

An unclean gaze can

1830 fill [the role of] an unclean deed.

Anger can secretly fill

the role of the blade.

Silent jealousy can

fill the role of an arrow.

1835 Slander can also

function as a pit.

Let us be afraid of ugly thinking,

because even thinking is acting.

Let us love the good thought,

1840 because it elicits payment indeed.

According to the Repayer of All Wills:

147 ܪ.

256

willing is acting.

Our freedom’s speech is imprinted

with that All-Acting Will.148

1845 For, just as God’s

willing is acting, SdF 2:383

so He accepts from us

willing as acting.

For, we have everything

1850 from that Lord of Everything,

so that with each we might overcome

the injuries of each.

Against darkness, light;

and against sweet, bitter.

1855 Against sleep, vigilance;

and against hunger, satiety.

So, that One who balanced the former

through comparison with the latter

did not allow a single contrary

1860 without pairing a remedy to it.

And if transitory man

craftily constructs

148 . ̇ ܨ ܘ ̇ ܇ ܢܬܘܪ ܝ ܗ

257

a remedy against his suffering,

as well as relief for his afflictions,

1865 as well as goods149 for his refreshment,

and nourishment for his need—

at sea, as appropriate for the sea;

on land, as appropriate for the land;

and thus with everything,

1870 he makes use of each thing;

he balances and establishes similar [weights]

of refreshments and goods

opposite seasons, goods

and opposite diseases, medicines,

1875 [so then] how much more will the Creator,

who compared and balanced things,

and set in order and constructed creation

and measured and gave contraries

and measured and poured out abundant helps

1880 and brought in and set up, as in a contest,

each and every pair,

one against the other, equally?

O mankind, you have

149 ̈ . i.e. “useful things.”

258

a weapon against everything.

1885 Yet if you have everything,

you [still] lack just one thing.

That is to say,150 if you are guilty,

you have no persuasive power151 in court.152

Concerning this, there is nothing [else] to persuade,

1890 since all armaments are [already] present with you.

The Evil One is shooting arrows at us;

may prayer become a shield for us.

If he attacks with desires,

may fasting become a place of refuge for us.

1895 When the Evil One distils jealousy,

may love become life-giving medicine for us.

If the Unjust One takes you captive,

justice will be your strong fortress.153

If his evil harms you,

1900 goodness will be your strong fortification.154

If he attacks with pride,

abasement will be a radiant weapon.

150 - ܕ ܕܗ 151 152 Reading with Rahm along with Beck. 153 154 ܕ

259

If he attacks with fleshly desire,

chastity will be like clothing.

1905 If he shoots sharp arrows,

your helmet is a victory.155

Against the woes which are with riches,

there are the beatitudes of poverty.

If he attacks with cupidity,

1910 may fasts become wings for us.

Jealousy produces breaches;

love repairs breaches.

Since our slayer has arrows,

our weakness has armaments.

1915 If he comes like a captor,

we have a strong fortification.

If he hardens himself like Pharaoh,

there is force to resist him.

If he pursues like the Egyptians,

1920 there is a sea for his submersion. Ex 14

If he conceals traps on earth,

there is mercy in heaven.

If he threatens like Goliath,

155 Rahm reads, “If he shoots unclean arrows, / our helmet is purity.”

260

there is the Son of David [to slay him] like David. 1 Sm 17

1925 If he exalts himself like Sisera,

he will be abased by the true Church. Jgs 4

If he wages war like Sennacherib,

he will be cast down by sackcloth and ashes. 2 Kgs 19

If he is like the Babylonian,

1930 there are those who are pure like Daniel. Dn passim

If he exalts himself like Haman,

there are fasters to overcome him. Est passim

If he kindles the fire of desire,

there are those who are victorious like Joseph. Gn 39

1935 What does our enemy have,

which we do not have in counter-balance?

What chain does he know,

whose loosing is not with us?

What disease does he extend,

1940 which has no medicine to confront it?

What fraud does he fashion,

which does not have the kor to expose it?

What [instrument for] harm has he obtained,

whose contrary we do not also have?

1945 What trap does he conceal,

261

whose facts are hidden from us?

What construct has he constructed,

which simple folk156 have not deconstructed?

What wall does he build,

1950 which conquering women157 have not opened? Cf. Jo 2,6

What furnace has he kindled,

which victorious children158 have not despised? Dn 3:19ff

Also, what pit has he prepared,

in which Daniel’s kin have not overcome? Dn 6

1955 What desire has he inflamed,

which Joseph’s companions have not [quenched]159? Gn 39

[What] delicacy has he prepared,

which Hananiah’s kin have not despised? Dn 1:11ff

The Evil One brandished pride;

1960 the humility of Moses assailed it. Nm 12

He enticed with Naaman’s gold,

but Elisha emphatically rebuked it. 2 Kgs 5:15

The sorcerer brought silver;

Simon Peter despised it. Acts 8:9ff

ܗܕ ̈ـ 156 157 ̈ ܙܕ ̈ . Perhaps, Ephrem wanted his audience to simultaneously hear in this phrase “innocent/conquering women.” 158 ̈ ̣ ܕ . Likewise, perhaps Ephrem wanted his audience to hear “shining/victorious children.” 159 According to Beck, the verbal root is unreadable. The reading supplied here was a guess based on sense. However, it is problematic, because the verb’s masculine, singular pronominal object, which remains, cannot have the feminine word “desire” as its antecedent.

262

1965 The Messiah lives in his apostles,

and the Evil One, in his disciples!

263

The Third Verse Homily of Reproof

Our generation whose troubles have increased

according to the number of its evil [deeds]—

it is fitting when you are smitten,

since His instruction is without injustice.

5 Expect Him during your oppression,

for His justice does not sleep.

Throng to him with repentance,

for His kindness does not tear down.

With vexations as well as comforts,

10 He is rearing you as a friend.1

As when seeds are growing

with frosts as well as dews.

If you call out, He will bring you joy;

do not grumble if He tarries.

15 Otherwise, grumble that He tarried

[to] repay you when you were sinning.

The mercy which pitied you when you offended

will pity your neighbor when he has offended.

Or perhaps, with just your [situation] alone

20 you want the Merciful One to be diligent?

1 ܘ. Alternatively, “a learned person.” See Chapter 6.

264

To be quick when you cry out

and to be slow when you cause an outcry.

To hear your voice when you wail

and to turn away when you cause wailing.

25 If you want Him to be quick

to punish you for the offence,

then you also rightly complain

when He delays with your oppressor.

Do not imagine that Justice

30 is unjust when she does not punish.

She certainly is gathering her punishments

for the great day of retribution.

On [that day] she will bring forth all types of measures:

the underweight,2 the tall, and the small.

35 For as much as someone has lent to everyone,

she shall fully pour it [back] into his bosom. Lk 6:33ff

Do not think that Justice

is really still at this time.

See, the ledgers are open before her;

40 and her finger is writing our debts.

She is writing our speech and our deeds,

2 ̈

265

our thoughts along with our acts.

And our slumbering heart does not perceive

the ugly [deeds] which are written upon it.

45 Not even our smallest gesture will escape

Lady-Justice, the Mistress of Sums.

The calculation of our inclination3 is bitter.

The speech of our mouth is tepid.

The heart forms all sorts of ugly [deeds];

50 the mouth vomits all sorts of evil [words].

No one fears that voice

spoken by the True One:

“For every word which the mouth speaks,

it must give an account for it.” Mt 12:36

55 In this world, it is especially fitting

to be afraid of Justice,

since she is precisely writing

deeds and words within ledgers.

The judge’s finger is frightening

60 when it grasps the pen for judgment.

For death flows from it—

that readied pen4 of the judge.

3 ܪܕ

266

The pen which the judge holds

hands the sword to the punisher.

65 It is the wellspring of everything

and the judgment which is decreed.

But it makes life and death travel

steps of honor and shame.

If it has inscribed “death” for someone;

70 prior to the sword, the voice orders his death.

It is not when one goes out to die

that he beseeches his executioner.

For the punisher has no authority

to show mercy or pity.

75 Prior to the sword, he will endeavor

with all sorts of bribes5 and offerings

to contrive to blot out from himself

the decree of death which was published.

So also, on the last day of judgment,

80 the punisher is pitiless.6

He does not have authority to show mercy

nor is he allowed to show pity.

4 . Literally “a cut pen,” but by extension the pen is ready to be used. 5 Or is it wergild? 6 Is the punisher God or his agent? If God, how is there a limit on his authority and on what he is allowed to do? I suppose one could say that God is limited by His nature from doing something contrary to his nature.

267

Indeed, today one can

entreat his judge,

85 so Justice might blot out from him

the decree which she had written against him.

If he does not entreat now,

[the judge] will deliver him7 to the great day—

that [day] devoid of leniency

90 and foreign to mercy as well.

You are a symbol of that day,

O day of departure, Nis 75

in that you lead us without mercy,

for death accepts no petition.

95 Do not save your petition

for the day when it cannot be accepted.

Let your supplication go ahead and plead

for the mercy which results in persuasion.

The decrees are being written

100 and the hearts of fools are distending!8

Our debts are being written

and our mind responds with jesting!

7 Perhaps, “he delivers himself.” 8 ܙܪܬ̇ .

268

Before the borrower’s [debt] is demanded,

he is already afraid of the contract. Virg 46:10f

105 Before the fast-talking [collector] comes,

he is terrified by a silent [document].

Before the demands arrive,

he is tormented by the documents.

Although the contract’s author

110 is not the one exacting his debts,

[the author’s] finger disturbs [the debtor’s] mind,

his pen disquiets his thinking.

For he knows that this finger

has hidden fire in scrolls.

115 Our own debts will crowd9

into contracts and pledges.

Your pledge is with the Knower of All;

Your mind is reproving you.

Your contract is with your judge;

120 His memory is that of the Knower of All.

His mind is a record of memories.

All sums are added up in it.10

9 Perhaps, Ephrem is imagining the ledger being written in a cramped hand. However, Beck appears to be favoring a martial metaphor, “Unsere Schulden warden (auf uns) stürzen….” 10 ̈

269

His thought is the mother of books

in which he was and is recording.

125 Be afraid of that One who does not forget,

since he will record all our conduct.

The property owner is afraid

of the evaluator when he evaluates.

The land owner is frightened

130 by the measurer when he measures.

Their document is a cause of terror,

since punishments come from it.

Today, it is fitting to tremble

before Justice, because we have been audacious.

135 For her eye is always roving

and her ear is ever inclining

to record words and deeds—

at the end the ledgers will be opened. Cf. Dn 7:10

Let us have a little pity on our mouth,

140 since its words are written every day.

Let us have a little pity on our mind,

since its thought is inscribed every hour.

But, if words and thoughts

are written each and every day,

270

145 then perfect deeds and acts

will be written so much more!

The comforts and the vexations are being written

for a person’s whole life:

how often one is at rest and refreshed

150 and how often one is distressed and vexed.

Do not be grieved when you are distressed.

A precious reward is being written for you.

Do not rejoice when you are at rest. √nwḥ

You have exchanged something for nothing.

155 The day is coming when you will groan, √ʾnḥ

“What have I given up for this?”11

For these temporal things are credited

against eternal benefits.

Be persuaded by the parable of the rich man, Lk 16:19ff

160 which was composed by the True One,

lest we choose for ourselves shadows

of blessings instead of the blessings [themselves].

Because [what is] near is loved,

the promise is remote and hidden.

11 Lit. “What was exchanged for what?” However, in English, that translation would not be emotive enough for the content of a groan.

271

165 Infancy has robbed itself

by its own choice and allotments.12

It chooses [what is] small and near

instead of the fullness which is distant.

Therefore, our infancy is instructed

170 by the teacher13 who came to our infancy.

He composed a parable for our instruction

and set it up for us as a mirror.

He said it as if it had [already] happened,

so the audience would be frightened by it.

175 The judgment is not yet.

So, let us be terrified by what is near.

He employed the name “judgment” prior to judgment,

though judgment will happen on its own day.

Lazarus received there

180 blessings instead of evils. Lk 16:25

With shadowy evils,

he purchased certain blessing.

Through the evils of this life,

he fled from those which are eternal.

12 ܗ ̇ ܬ̈ 13 ܪ

272

185 The rich man’s [fate]14 was opposite

to that of the poor man.

He preferred a good dream

over a true blessing.

As in a dream was his delight;

190 As in reality was his torment.

He did not take his delight from [the goods] of the oppressed,

so as to be tormented as an oppressor.

He was tormented on account of what he had,

for he was eating without sharing his food.15

195 But, if he was eating his own

[and] was tormented, because he did not share,

how much more bitter will the punishment be

for one who eats [the food] of the oppressed!

He did not realize that he should repent here,

200 so his penitence will be in Gehenna!

The two gates of his ears are opened— tryn/trʿyn

each in equal proportion to the other.

If he were to hear the whole scripture,

it would pass from one ear to the other.

14 This reading was inspired by Beck’s parenthetical addition, Schicksal. 15 ܘܗ ܘ.

273

205 Since he was negligent here while listening,

the All Answering One will neglect him.

He will call to the All Pitying One,

but the All Hearing One will not answer him.

See, He gives a blessing to the poor; Lk 6:20

210 they suffered a little, but obtained much.

And He gives woe to the rich; Lk 6:24

they obtained a little, but lost much.

Do not rejoice in finding,

since loss is better.

215 May this transitory [world] be lost,

so you might find true possessions.

If you exchanged one thing for another,

the Giver will reckon it to your account.

But, if you seek that world to come,

220 even this [world] will remain as well.

There will be a reckoning with you;

either you will receive or will repay.

If [just] the tip of your little finger experiences

some comfort and some vexation,

225 it will not escape the notice of the Knower of All, √ṭʿy

for He will soon reckon it to your account.

274

He will make a reckoning with you

from alaph unto taw.16

For the alphabet is a symbol

230 of the reckoning of Justice:

It is quite small in its number,

but it composes books without number.

And if you read a myriad of books

and a [single] letter is missing from them, √ṭʿy

235 that letter which was missing there √ṭʿy

will not escape your skill. √ṭʿy

In a myriad of books, you will know

even if a yodh is missing there. √ṭʿy

If an errant nature √ṭʿy

240 does not miss a forgotten [letter], √ṭʿy (twice)

how will something escape the notice √ṭʿy

of that Nature, that All Knowing One?

If a scent and a smell come to you

from honor and shame,

245 Justice will reckon it to your account

on the Great Day of Reckoning.

For the reckoning is exact,

16 In Syriac, the alphabet is employed as numeric shorthand. In light of this, it is possible that Ephrem had in mind a financial ledger in which every “digit” is carefully accounted for.

275

since it neither errs nor leads to error. √ṭʿy (twice)

If your balance is positive, you will receive.

250 If your balance is negative, you will repay.17

If your balance is positive, you will receive

from the eternal blessings.

And if you [already] received your reckoning

through past things, it will set you free.

255 But, if your balance is negative,

you will have torment to repay.

Instead of transitory delight,

eternal torment is there.

A great lamentation in both cases:

260 whether he is indebted or goes unpunished.

Whoever [is not punished]18 will weep,

since he did not [exchange]19 one thing for another.

Whoever is a debtor will wail,

since he gave something for nothing.

265 Instead of transitory comfort,

He will give the body to torment.

17 Lines 249-251, and 253 have a puzzling idiom not attested in the lexica, as Beck briefly addressed in the footnote to his translation of line 250. I have chosen to translate etā + l- as “to have a positive balance” and etā + men as “to have a negative balance.” 18 3 syllables missing. Probably, ܰ ܬܳ ܳܕ. Cf. previous line. 19 ܶ 2 syllables missing. Probably, ܰ . Cf. line 217.

276

For He frees one for nothing,

and exacts from another something.

In suffering, shame, and vexation,

270 you [weaklings]20 used to rejoice.

In riches, comfort, and luxury,

do not rejoice, lest you weep.

My brothers, it is time for you to weep,

since the latter is credited against the former.21

275 If slavery has befallen you,

a good occasion has befallen you.

Since you became a slave to your equal,

[your] mutual Lord will serve you.

He promised to serve you, Cf. Lk 12:37

280 and with His promise is His surety.

He served Iscariot, Jn 13

so His promise is to be believed by you.

If the Holy Lord served

that slave of sin,

285 how much more will He serve the one who endures

slavery on behalf of his debt?

20 The manuscript is difficult to read. I am reading the ms. as ̈ against Beck’s suggestion . Most certainly, the word does not begin with a ܒ nor end with an ܥ. 21 That is to say, luxuries are credited against suffering. ܢ ̈ ܐܕ

277

Your Lord came to servitude;

do not seek freedom!

He will honor22 you more than the freeborn,

290 since you imitated his servitude.

Has poverty befallen you?

Praise its Giver often!

For He lightened your weighted wing,

so it would carry [you] from here to the Kingdom.

295 Lest poverty should distress you,

He buried love within it to gladden you.

Let not your house be poor

[while] your mind desires riches,

lest you be judged with the rich

300 and vexed with the poor.

Wealth is in your mind

and poverty in your house.

Your woe is mixed with the rich

and your vexation with the poor.

305 If pride would permit you,

become a herdsman instead of a shepherd.

Because, a shepherd is as liable23 as a master

22 ܒ ܪ

278

and a herdsman as a disciple.

Also, if conceit would allow [you],

310 become a sheep and not a herdsman.

Because, a sheep is as liable as a pauper24 šyṭʾ

and a herdsman as a ruler. šlyṭʾ

A sheep is liable for himself

and the herdsman for many.

315 The entire flock’s liability

is hung upon the shepherd of the flock.

If the shepherds are rejoicing,

[while] the herd is sad,

do not long for [that] joy,

320 since its reckoning is about to occur.

If exaltation is with them

and with the flock is contempt,

do not rejoice in that exaltation,

since its examination is ready to occur.

325 The shepherd who gives himself rest,

his flock is vexed and wretched.

Do not desire his comforts,

23 ܬ 24 . Beck translates, “etwas Verächtlichem.”

279

since his flock complains about him.

If the shepherd gives his body rest,

330 his rest vexes his flock.

And if he adds honor to himself,

he multiplies harm among his sheep.

He consumes the milk of the herd

and the wolf consumes its flesh.

335 All that he consumes of it

is what the wolf does not consume.

It is not fitting that both sides

are sustained by the side of the herd.

Even for a portion of its wool

340 a great search takes place.

There was joy in heaven

for the sheep which went astray and returned. Lk 15:7

That One whom the Cherubim carried CJ 3:17

came down [and] carried the stray sheep. Cf. Lk 15:5

345 Who would despise the flock

purchased with the blood of God? CNis 19:5

The True Shepherd suffered in it

280

to teach suffering to the herdsmen.25

Since the Chief of Shepherds suffered in it,

350 who can be at rest in [the flock]?

Myriads upon myriads of corrections

did the Just One transmit for your perversity.

Moreover, he also composed for you

a law of ink, as well.

355 If you gaze upon your bodily suffering,

you will learn [about] spiritual suffering.

If you examine yourself,

you will have no need for the law.

And if you consider creation,

360 you will have no need for rules.

If you gaze upon a great mountain;

it will be your teacher, if you wish.26

If you contemplate a small gnat;

it will be your guide, if you are discerning. Virg 52:8

365 Heaven above is your mirror;

earth below is your medicine.

25 Lines 343-8 quoted by Philoxenus of Mabbug in his Florilegium (#203-4). See Brière and Graffin, Florilegium, 110. 26 Ms. reads “ܨܬ”. Beck suggests the correction “ܬ”. That reading certainly fits the context, but seems unnecessary.

281

Let alone everything in between

located on land and sea!

The large land is your teacher.

370 The sea’s flow is your guide.27

See, we are grinding down laws;

see, we are multiplying interpretations.

Heaven and earth are

scrolls for a master sage.28

375 See, heaven above us

is a scroll filled with His laws.

Also, the air before us

is a large volume of His commandments.

So also, the earth beneath us

380 is a mirror for all His rules.

Creation, the mother of laws,

reproves our audacity.

Justice, the mother of torments,

punishes our rebellion.

385 Grace, the mother of mercy,

pities our boldness.

27 Unfortunately, the translation hides a clever word play that further emphasizes the parallel structure: large (rabbā)/ teacher (rabbā), flow (redyā)/ guide (rādoyā). 28 ̈

282

Blessed be the Threefold First-Born,

Who saves us through [these] three.29

Instead of the tablet which you make

390 for your son to learn to write,

the Teacher of All has made

your mind a tablet for you.

Your mind is your tablet;

on it is written every law.

395 So, how can you make another?

And how will he make another for you?

Both properly and improperly,

you are learning from that tablet.

For you learn properly,

400 when one treats you properly.

But you learn improperly,

when you repaid your neighbor improperly.

You strike your student when he has twisted

a line of his text.30

405 The Just One straightens your mind,

since you are a student of His text.

29 i.e. Creation, Justice, and Grace. 30 pl.

283

He formed31 for you a heavenly model,

but you are writing down a terrestrial one.

He formed for you a spiritual type,

410 but you are transcribing in a bodily fashion.

Faced with the truth which He inscribed for you,

you form falsehood.

Faced with sublime lines,

you [transcribe] base possessions.

415 He forms for you “alms,”

but you copy “groans.”

Faced with the headline “love,”

you transcribe “jealousy.”32

Faced with the “H” of “humility,”

420 you write the “P” of “pride.”

[Let] your letter be a little

more like [your student’s] letter.33

[For] your student deviated [only] a little

from the letter which you showed him.

425 But contrariwise you set down

a letter before your Lord.

31 ܪ ܨ 32 Indeed, these are possible errors that a quite careless scribe could make in Syriac: groans(̈ ܐ)/ alms(̈ ܕܙ), jealously()/ love(). 33 Contra Beck, I am reading ̣ as men not mān. See Kiraz §141.

284

You lost [the letters] in one place

and found them in another.

For instead of the “G” of God,

430 you write the “M” of Mammon.

And thus, one after another

you are transcribing according to your own way.

A bird’s storehouse is its stomach

and its stores are the day’s gleanings.

435 An oppressor’s storehouse is his eye

and his hunger is the hungering of Sheol.

His eye desires all that it sees,

since his want is never filled.

Too paltry are springs for the sea

440 and profits for the oppressor.

Had there been daily bread,

then the wolf would not be rapacious.

And when it found plenty somewhere,

its full stomach would go from there.

445 Three or four days,

a lion goes without eating.

And if it comes to carry something off,

the shepherds shout at it.

285

So, a rich man belches smoke

450 and snatches needful bread.

The greedy man bursts from eating

and carries off the portion of the oppressed.

The owner of the talents sees Mt 25:14ff

even the mina of the widow. Mk 12:41ff

455 Greed does not disparage

the quadrans and the stater.

Likewise, the sea does not discount

rivers and streams.

Along with cedars, fire consumes

460 tender grass and mature grain.

The greedy gather gold

from widows and orphans.

And they disperse it in stadia,

to athletes and charioteers,

465 to male and female singers,

and to unclean men and women;

so its accumulation would come through wickedness

and also its dispersal through villainy.

Since with its accumulation there are groans

470 and with its distribution there are sins,

286

the Evil One has taught its accumulation

and he is teaching its dispersal.

He caught injustice while gathering it;

He sowed sin while scattering it;

475 so that the capital and interest of sin

would accompany the sinner.

But chaste men and women

he despoiled by another scheme:

they wear themselves out weaving and spinning

480 and [then] rush to bury and conceal [their labor].

In the realm of the living, there is adverse labor;

but in the realm of the dead, there is destruction.

Within [both] realms, there is immense toil;

but in the grave, there is great damage.

485 For they are woven without decorum

and are buried without order.

With precious materials34 they were prepared Cf. CH 46:3,

and with lamentation they were torn apart.35 Nis 21:8

Greedily they were fashioned

34 ̈ ܪ. 35 Beck argues that the context here is not the tearing of garments during mourning, but the waste involved in luxurious burials. Thus, he suggests reading verb as ܩ ܪܐ rather than ܬܐ. However, this correction is unnecessary, for it is easy to imagine Ephrem grouping together the critiques of two different forms of commodity waste during the mourning process. Nevertheless, the parallel with the next line would be more complete if we allow for Beck emendation.

287

490 and vainly they were destroyed.

These are wasted garments

for the living as well as the dead.

The living are not warmed by them,

nor are the dead helped by them.

495 There is no gain for the burier36

nor profit for the buried.

Would that as there was no profit,

there would also be no harm.

But I think that a lavish burial

500 makes injustice abound.

Instead of laying up treasures

for the departed at their burial,

they are concealing at their burial

blame in their clothes.

505 Here also the Evil One has robbed

humanity in two ways.

He imposed labor in the realm of living

and he imposed harm in the realm of the dead.

He made them toil with the cloth

36 Beck’s edition says lectio incerta, but his guess can now be confirmed by a careful analysis of the digitized manuscript.

288

510 and he made them sin with the burial.

Without [proper] order were both

the realm of the living and the realm of the dead.

Numberless, [the clothing] inside of trunks;

countless, [the clothing] inside of graves.

515 For the moth eats in trunks

and the worm gnaws within graves.

We are boasting in two ways:

in sins and action.

Let the poor be covered with

520 the clothing which would waste away in graves,

so that the dead may be covered instead

with glory on the day of resurrection.

289

Another1 Homily of Reproof2

Mankind, be afraid of injustice;

for injustice wastes fields.

Indeed, it is a fountain of evils,

which flows and intoxicates many.

5 The one who drank from its current

became intoxicated with it and forgot good [deeds].

And because of his intoxication, he does not know

how much he is harmed by his drinking.

For its ugly [deeds] are invisible

10 to the one who loves its evils.

To the wicked and the unjust,

its grievous yoke is light.

To the liar and the deceiver,

its burden is easy to bear.

15 To the adulterer and the fornicator,

its fountain’s flow is sweet.

To the oppressor and the gravely3 greedy,

its idolatry is pleasing.

To the despoiler and the plunderer,

20 it is beloved, choice, and cherished.

1 This homily is of questionable authenticity. Thus, it is not numbered with the others. See, Chapter 4. 2 See Appendix B for a parallel edition of the Syriac text and a discussion of why Beck’s edition is inadequate. The line numbers of this translation follow this new edition and not those of Beck’s edition 3

290

To the unclean, lewd, and filthy,

its bile is sweet and fragrant.

To the extravagant, proud, and pompous,

it is pleasing, fair, and desirable.

25 Injustice is desirable for the unjust,

but it is ugly in the eyes of the righteous,

for the soul of the just recoils

from its flavor as well as its scent.

But its bitter flavor is sweet

30 to the rabid mouth of the unjust.

To the one who violates his own customs,4

all evil [deeds] are beautiful.

To the proud who scorns the masses,

its ugly [deeds] are pleasing.

35 For it would be ugly in his sight,5

to repudiate and leave aside his sins.

For he sampled the flavor of injustice

and it was altogether sweet to his mind.

And when he tasted it, he thirsted all the more,

40 so he returned to drink more of it.

The unjust man, who has seen the sight

of injustice, destroys many.

4 ̈ ̈ ܗ ܪܘܐ 5 In W, this hemistich ends with , which would suggest that this couplet might contain a quote.

291

He stared at it and saw its harm;

and it fully pleased to his pupils.

45 But if the righteous happened

to sample some of its vapor;6

they vomited, heaved, up chucked, and hurled,

lest they be sickened with its bile.

And if they happened see some of it—

50 even if just a glimpse from afar—

they immediately shut their eyes,

lest they be troubled by its sight.

And they immediately stopped their ears,

lest they be disturbed by its noise.

55 And they withdrew their hands from it,

lest they be harmed by its touch.

And they kept their feet from it,

lest they stumble7 in its wasteland.

And they shut the door to their mouths,

60 lest they take pleasure in its flavor.

And they purged their lips of it,

lest they be drawn taut with its bile.

And they also cleansed their palates

from the sweetness of its crimes.8

6 Reading with F. W reads “behavior.” 7 Reading with F. W reads “putrefy.”

292

65 And they also purified their minds,

lest they be stained with its love.9

And purely they washed it off

their members immediately.

And they rubbed off the hidden dirt

70 from the surface of their minds.

And they liberated the senses of their intellect

from the servitude10 of the destroyer.

For they were wisely standing

upon an intermediary height.

75 And three times they looked11

with their bright eyes.

They considered the ancient generations

when the unjust were smitten.

They gazed upon the intermediary generations

80 when sinners were tormented.

And they were expecting the future judgment,

during which those mixed up are separated.12

The sinners as well as the unjust.

The criminals as well as the villains.

8 Reading with W. F reads “deeds.” 9 Reading with W. F reads, “heat.” 10 Reading with F. W reads, “infertility.” 11 Reading with W. F reads, “journeyed.” 12 Reading with W. F reads, “are punished.” I interpret “mixed up” (blīlīn) pejoratively in F, with a sense akin to English “perverts.” However, the sense in W could refer to the inseparability of the righteous and the unrighteous in this world as in Jesus’ parable of the tares. The sense of W fits better with what follows.

293

85 The wanton as well as the oppressor.

The unclean, the greedy, and the glutton.

Those who were mixed up and considered on par

with the righteous without separation,

who had walked on the broad road,

90 will be separated from it unto darkness.

They are forced,13 they fall as one

into one disease-ridden depth.

For as much as each has taken pleasure,

disease will rack ˻his members.14

95 Into a single lake of fire, they fall

where its torment has no relief.

They howl in it and also groan in it

from the fervency of its heat.

Their gnashing teeth’s loud

100 sound sickens their ears.15

The sound of their bones’ popping

pops out their eyes.

They are tormented and also afflicted

and there is neither respite nor rest.

105 They look to the highest summit

and its torrents are fire.

13 Reading with W. F reads, “scattered.” 14 Reading with W. F reads, “testing him.” 15 Reading with W. F reads, “bodies.”

294

They look at the depth below

and flames spring up.

They look ahead

110 and a firestorm blows.

They search behind

and a fiery tempest grows.

They look to their left

and the flame is vehement.

115 They look to their right

and the blaze breaks into many flames.

With a quivering gasp they quaver

also with a spasmodic shiver.

They open their mouth wide with suffering16

120 and belch forth blazing fire.

From their nostril holes,

smoke billows forth.

Since with them they were uncleanly cackling,

in the fire they will justly crackle.17

125 The deceitful gates of their ears

are uprooted with the force of fire,

since they were foolishly opened

and were wickedly shut.

16 There is a word play here that does not come across well in translation. The Syriac word for “suffering” (ܘܐ) can also refer to something tightly (en)closed and that meaning is the polar opposite of “to open wide” ( ). 17 The verbs of this line “to cackle” and “to crackle” are both translating the same onomatopoeic root: √pqʿ.

295

Since they were improperly opened

130 to unclean and corrupt voices,

but they were wickedly shut

before the voices of the poor.18

Grievous fire smolders

in their flesh and their bodies,

135 since grievous19 sin smoldered

secretly in their minds.

They rub against each other

and their bodies’ blaze escalates,

since everyone ˻catches fire on his own20

140 and burns his neighbor with fire.

Since everyone had sinned on his own

and devastated his neighbor with sin,

they are overthrown and ruined

and hung in the balance with their neighbors.

145 Everyone is cast down and piled

on his neighbor and on his companion.

The flames’ power waxes

in piles of persons—

with their limbs’ kindling,

18 Reading with W. Lines 129-132 are condensed to two lines in F: “before the voice of the poor, / and the afflicted as well as the needy.” The present translator judges the poetic of W to be superior and more in accord with the text’s general rhythmic patterns. 19 Reading with W. F reads, “secret.” 20 Reading with F. W reads, “knows himself.”

296

150 the flame flares up more—

the parched as well as the moist,

according to will of the flame.

For they were parched of the truth,

which is a fire-quencher.

155 And they were moist with sin,

the flame’s oil.

Through their members’ dryness,

the fire’s glow intensifies.

Through their joints’ moisture,

160 the blaze rages more.

The unclean is cast upon the foul

and the debauched upon the fornicator.

Overthrown and ruined are

the deceivers along with the liars.

165 The oppressor encounters the greedy

and as one they are cast ⸤into torment.21

The jealous as well as the envious;

the finger-pointer22 and the slanderer.

The drunkard as well as the curser;23

170 the despoiler as well as the plunderer.

The unjust as well as villains;

21 Reading with F. W reads, “overthrown.” 22 ̇ ܪ. 23 Reading with W. F reads, “glutton.”

297

liars as well as criminals.

All of the tares together

meet each other there.

175 Their heads beat and knock

against each other in their confinement.24

In their bitter vexations,

they howl, they harshly shout.

Every one of them breathes fire

180 and his breath ignites his neighbors.

A mother is weighed with her sons,

and a man strikes his loved ones.25

The drunkard is crazed with wine

and he shakes and harshly quakes.

185 But there, in their vexations,

they become crazed and insane.

And in their bitter sufferings,

they become rabid, they bite each other.

Mother bites her darlings;

190 also father bites his sons.

Further, brother bites his brother.

Also, neighbor bites his neighbor.

Everyone bites, maims, and disfigures

24 ܢܘܘ̈ . The translations “in their confinement” and “in their suffering” are equally valid here. 25 F reads, “his only son.”

298

whomever he encounters.

195 “Manasseh consumes Ephraim

and Ephraim consumes Manasseh.” Is 9:21

Also, “a man on account of his suffering

consumes the flesh of his arm.” Is 9:20

And “father consumes his sons

200 and mother consumes her darlings.”26

A dainty and pampered woman

consumes her sons and daughters.

Even, compassionate women

boil their sons during suffering.

205 If this [happens] here during suffering,

it is [just] a shadow of that which is to come.

[If] people have become this rabid

and have consumed the flesh of their sons,27

how much more rabid will they be when they become insane

210 through eternal suffering!

And they will gnaw their members—

both their own and their sons’.

Whoever bites does not bite

to satisfy his hunger,

215 but only [to see] whether he can

26 W has plural and F has singular. 27 Reading lines 209-218 with W. Although there are numerous minor variants and unreadable words in F, the gist is the same.

299

mitigate his bitter griefs.

And whether there is a way to moderate

his torture and agony.28

But, his vexation will not cease,

220 for his torture is eternal.

Like iron and brass [bitten],

they bite each other there.

For whoever becomes rabid and bites

hard iron and brass

225 shatters his clenched teeth

and loosens and uproots his molars.

So, whoever bites there

hurts and harms himself.

His very own flesh,

230 the feral man gnaws there.

The limbs are coals;

even the joints of the unjust.29

For there is no rest for their vexations

nor quiescence for their torments.

235 Neither binding for their fractures

28 29 Reading lines 229-232 with F. W reads: For on his very own coals, the feral man gnaws there— the unjust are coals— and the joint of their limbs.

300

nor medicine for their diseases.

There is nothing to moisten and dampen

the sizzling30 of their teeth.

There is none to save or deliver

240 the overthrown who suddenly fell.

Nor is there one to support or uphold

the prostrate who bent and fell,

who in outer darkness

are afflicted with gnashing teeth.

245 And through a dark gloom

they grope, blindly wandering.

And within a deep pit,

they drop, justly falling.

But, the true righteous,31

250 the steadfast,32 the just, and the virtuous,

the modest, the vigilant, and the fasters,

the continent and the compassionate,

the pure of heart and the celibates,33

and the creators of beautiful [deeds],

255 and the lovers of the faith,

and the workers of righteousness,

30 31 So begins an unusually long sentence, spanning 12 lines. 32 ̈ ܬ 33 ̈

301

and the singles,34 the sons of light,

who wait for the hidden hope

and for eternal recompense35

260 in those promised blessings.

The good ones, who praise the Good One,

who are gladdened by His Goodness,

all the sons of the right,

the Great King’s laborers,

265 rejoice at the summit of paradise,

at which they take eternal delight.

In whose pleasant shadows,

they forget the swelter of evil [deeds].

And among the beautiful trees,

270 they lavishly celebrate.36

And near his good fruit platters,

they dwell in silence and rest,

with neither the fear nor the terror

of the deceiver’s charms.

275 For the eye cannot gaze

on the glorious light which dwells in [Paradise],

since the splendor which issues from it

would strike its pupils blind.

34 ̈ 35 Reading with W. F reads, “salvation.” 36 F reads “exult in Glory’s delights.”

302

Also, from its fragrant fruits

280 and the sweetness of its flavors,

they are sated and rejoice in it forever

and they forget the hunger of their fasts.

And they see in a dark vale

the bitter torments,37

285 and the humiliation of the castigations

of the evil children of the left

and the mighty vexations

of the crabs, the sons of darkness,38

whose steps are awry

290 in search of their paths.39

Just as Abraham saw

the smoke and vapor of Sodom,

which was overthrown on account of its inhabitants,

because of the injustice of its settlers.

295 And fire licked it wrathfully,

because of the crime of its occupants.

And also sulfur swallowed it

and it became a fright to its neighbors.

Since the poor were harassed in it

300 and the destitute were tortured in it. cf. Ez 16:49

37 ̈ ܢ ܘ̣̈ ܬ. The enclitic pronoun anticipates the “children of the left” of line 286. 38 F reads, “the black sons of darkness.” W’s reading fits better with the imagery. 39 The author calls them crabs, because their walk is twisted like a crab-walk.

303

The needy cried out against it

and the oppressed wailed against it.

The widow shouted40 against it

and the orphan bellowed on account of its crime.

305 The bare and naked

raised invectives to Heaven.

For the fullness of good things were being heaped

and held before the hungry.

For everyone was eating and pampering themselves

310 and the hungry were wailing in street markets.

The insatiable man41 was drinking unto intoxication,

and thirst was parching his tongue.

And the unjust man was constantly changing

[his] beautiful, colorful clothes,

315 and the bare man was tormented

by frost in the street markets.

And there was no one to soothe the afflicted

nor to clothe the naked.

And the foreigners’ injustice could not

320 withhold alms from them.

And pain was added to the wound;

and they were abused all the more.42

40 Reading with F. W reads, “complained.” 41 Reading with W. F reads, “the proprietor.”

304

And they gathered together and lodged a complaint

before the hidden, just Judge.

325 And the Judge heard them43

and immediately prosecuted their cases.

And suddenly He commanded the clouds

and they ˻became pregnant with44 fire and brimstone.

And they rained and poured down upon the unclean

330 a deluge of fire in wrath.

And that fire clothed itself with power

and threw down the pride of the pompous.

And it abased the [city’s] extravagance

and humbled her pride

335 and laid low her pomp

and filled her mouth with dust.45

It opened the door of the rich

and riffled46 through their rooms.47

It roared and whistled through her palaces

340 and its voice shook lofty dwellings.48

42 Reading lines 319-322 with W. F (awkwardly?) reads: And the bitter injustice was not enough to hold back the needy, but even this which is hated: they insulted them with insults. 43 Reading with W. F reads, “That Just One both listened and heard.” 44 Reading with W. F reads, “dripped.” 45 Reading with F. W reads “every woe.” 46 47 Reading with W. F reads, “treasuries.” 48 Reading with F. Through an apparent rēsh/dōlath error, W reads, “its bitter voice caused tremors.”

305

It soared on up to the bedrooms

and upper stories.

It saw the elevation of [their] couches

and the extravagance of their clothing,

345 where a greedy man was reclining and reveling

and it struck him and suddenly he popped.

It overturned and threw down the couches

and the recliners’ platters.

The greedy man’s bread was inside his mouth,

350 and fire was began to dwell on his tongue.

His tongue along with his bread ignited,

so also his lips along with his drink.

The noise of the flames screamed

and brought forth quivering and shivering.

355 For everyone was fleeing and hiding,

since fire was seeking everyone.

And wherever each hid,

there it came in and found him.49

It kicked the oppressor’s belly

360 and it vomited out the oppressed.

It struck the tyrant’s head

and flame fractured it.

The strong and hard bones

49 Reading with W. F reads, “it blew and took her (sic) from there.”

306

of the powerful and mighty,

365 it ground down like dust

and they became ash ⸤in their mouths.50

It dissolved the composition of their bones

as well as the structure of their bodies,

For they were rightly constructed

370 And they were wrongly destroyed.

For they were rightly constructed51

by the will of the Creator.

And they were wrongly destroyed

by their ˻very own52 will.

375 Wherever it found each,

it overthrew ˻his pride53 there.

In their clothes they were scorched,

since they were withholding from the naked.

In their oils they were fried,

380 since they did not give oil to the malnourished.54

In their wines they were drowned,

since they did not give drink to the thirsty.

Their houses became their graves,

50 Reading with W. F reads, “and powder.” 51 W seems to contain multiple scribal errors in lines 366-371. See transcription in Appendix B. 52 Reading with W. F reads, “contrary.” 53 Reading with W. F reads, “and threw him down.” 54 ̈ ܢ ܘ ܕ. The lexica do not mention the sense “to give oil” for the D-stem of the root √MŠḤ. Rather, the sense given in the lexica is “to anoint (with oil).” Perhaps, the translation should simply read “since they did not anoint the malnourished [with the oils].” However, the sense and the parallel with the following line would suggest the reading given above. See also, a similar use of the D-stem of √DHN at line 446.

307

since they did not bring the poor into them.

385 In their chambers they were buried,55

since they cultivated ugly [deeds] in them.

In their bedrooms they were tormented,

since they did evil [deeds] in them.

In their dwellings they ˻were slain56,

390 since they performed evil [deeds]57 in them.

In their markets they were brought low,

since the hungry were harassed in them.

The bones of the elderly became wood,

like kindling for their sons.58

395 And they caught fire together, the elderly,

the youth, and the children.

Even the infants were smothered

in the laps of [their] mothers.

Even the unborn were aborted

400 within pregnant women’s wombs.

The fire’s force was stoked

in feral men and women,

in virgins who were debauched,59

in brides who committed adultery,60

55 Reading with F. W reads, “corrupted.” 56 Reading with W. F reads, “vanished.” 57 Reading with W. F reads, “uncleanness.” 58 F reads, “loved ones.” 59 Reading with W. F reads, “adorned.”

308

405 in wives who were defiled,

in maids who lived wildly.61

in fiancées who were polluted,

in fiancés who were corrupted.

Those women who were washed, oiled, and made up

410 for ugly and evil [deeds],

and were decorated and braided

for defilement and debauchery,

and were dressed and adorned62

for adultery and fornication—

415 and the scent of their perfumes wafted

and drove crazy unclean and feral men;

and with their faces’ look,

they enraptured and captivated their on-lookers—

fire justly punished

420 their destructive crimes.

Since the offending women loved kohl,63

it became ash in their eyes.

And since they loved the perfumes’ scent,

their bodies’ scent became fetid.

60 ܐ 61 ܬܐ 62 Reading “ܐ” with F. However, W reads ̈ ܬܐ. If this reading is correct, then perhaps the author means “to be shaped.” For the root √ḤŠL is frequently used in reference to metal working (e.g. JPS glosses the G-Stem, “to found, cast, or forge.”) And perhaps, here there is the added nuance that the shaping was unnatural and restrictive. 63 Reading with W. F reads, “Since they loved kohl and antimony.”

309

425 Since they boasted in their decorations,

they were ˻brought low with64 flame.

Since they ⸤were extravagant65 with their kohl,

coals dislodged their eyes.

Since they overindulged66 in earrings, √šrḥ

430 their ears were deafened by thunder’s sound. √ḥrš

Since they excessively polished their teeth,

smoke blackened67 them. √šḥr

Since their faces were adorned,

inflammation disfigured them.

435 Since they plaited and decorated68 their hair,

they were ˻buried in a fiery draft.69

Since they bathed and oiled their body, √sḥy/√mšḥ/√gšm

fire flayed their skin.70 √nšṭ/√mšk

Since their bodies were white with natron,

440 their bones became white with burning.

Since they ate, were satisfied, and indulged themselves,

but had no compassion for the poor, √mskn

fire consumed their bodies

without compassion or pity. ḥwsn

64 Reading with F. W reads, poured out in.” 65 Reading with W. F reads, “captivated people.” 66 Reading with W. F reads, “took pride.” 67 Reading with W. F reads, “stained.” 68 Reading with W. F reads, “combed.” 69 Reading with W. F reads, “singed with the heat of fire.” 70 Reading with W. F reads, “through flame they perished and vanished.”

310

445 Since they were fattened with oils, √mšḥ

but did not give fat to the widow,

a tongue of fire was fattened

with their bodies’ fat and blood.

Since they were kept warm with clothing, √šḥn

450 but did not provide warmth for naked women, √šḥn/√šlḥ

their bodies in their clothes

singed, caught fire, and collapsed.

Since they wore pearls

with pride and extravagance,

455 a fiery sword hewed

their necks from front to back.71

Since they indulged themselves upon mattresses72

and took pleasure upon pillows,73

fiery arrows pierced

460 them from side to side.74

Since they exalted and magnified themselves,

they are eternally abased!

Since they were extravagant and also pompous,

they disappeared forever.

465 These bitter judgments,

71 Literally, “their [front] necks (ṣawrayhon) and their [back] necks (qdālayhon).” 72 Text has singular. 73 ̈ ܪ 74 Literally, “their side (seṭrayhon) along with their side (gabbayhon).”

311

the unclean received in wrath.

These evil torments,

the presumptuous received in the fire.

But our heart does not perceive

470 that it could keep our soul from injustice,

since our mind is athirst

with love for our injustice, our slayer.

Our thinking and our mind,

is secretly led captive and taken away.75

475 For we are guided with increasing severity,

so perhaps we would come to knowledge.

And the straight staff turns us

with its blow to the true way.

And ˻it shows the straight path76

480 to whoever wants to go out to it.

But our heart, which has often rebelled

and forgotten the truth, our helper,

is not troubled by difficulties,

except for a short time.

485 And it is not softened by lures,

except to be counterfeit.

For mighty scourges multiplied

75 Reading lines 474-475 W. F reads, “Led captive and taken away is our reasoning, / our attention, and our thought.” 76 Reading with W. F reads, “the straight path gives joy.”

312

and harsh77 staves of correction.

But our humanity was not frightened

490 by the disgrace of the ancients.

For the army of heroes was out matched

in battle because of injustice,

until the unclean were exposed

and the Most High rested from wrath.

495 Even to us—my Lord to us!—there throngs

the scourge which came to the ancients.

One fruit, Adam plucked

and was exposed, stripped, and cast out.

But ten thousand fruits of sin,

500 our humanity has plucked and sucked.78

And see! its garment remains

through compassion, grace, and mercy.

The mighty79 grew wanton

before the law was established. Gn 6:1ff

505 And a flood swept away and drowned

the wanton men and women.

Ten thousand voices of the law

shout to us at the doors of our ears,

but our mind is not awestruck [enough]

77 Reading with W. F reads, “straight.” 78 Reading with W. F reads, “took up.” 79 ̈

313

510 to strive to learn truth.

The mighty built a building

and their tongues were confused. Gn 11:1ff

Mountains of sins surge above us

but the words of our mouth are stretched out.80

515 The Sodomites withheld from the hungry

the bread within their houses.

Fire and brimstone ground down

those who held them back.

See! among us, there are pillaged

520 the orphan, the hungry, and the needy.

And there remains the hand which pillaged

the orphan, the hungry, and the widow.

To Pharaoh whose heart was hard

and whose mind was bitter,81

525 He showed signs and scourges,

so perhaps his thinking would be abashed.

There, a staff transformed,

changed, and became a serpent. Ex 7:8ff

Here, the Savior’s cross

530 was raising the ˻prostrate dead.82

There, a river turned to blood Ex 7:14ff

80 Reading with W. F reads, “remain.” 81 Reading with W. F reads, “rebellious.” 82 Reading with W. F reads, “dead in Sheol.”

314

and the unclean were tormented with thirst.

Here, the Good One poured forth His blood

and gave the dead life to drink.

535 There, frogs putrefied83 Ex 8:1ff

and the land stank with their scent.

But here, [are] the true apostles,

by whose scent the land smelled sweet.

There, lice swarmed Ex 8:16ff

540 and consumed84 the flesh of sorcerers.

But here, the Good One in His Goodness

shook85 worms out from the dead.

There, the plague strengthened Ex 8:20ff

gnats of every species.

545 Here, the peoples of every language [were strengthened]

when they became disciples and learned the truth.

There, a great pestilence, Ex 9:1ff

which slaughtered the cattle in the field.

Here, life and the Life-Giver,

550 which were sustaining the people in the field.

There, festering boils spread, Ex 9:8ff

which ˻left ulcers on86 an entire nation.

83 Reading with W. F reads, “gathered.” 84 Reading with W. F reads, “tormented.” 85 The verb used here, , suggests the cleaning of a loose material, such as fabric, by shaking or beating. 86 Reading with F. W reads, “struck.”

315

Here, diseases were healed

from the limbs of the needy.

555 Also there, hail and fire, Ex 9:18ff

which fractured trees in the field.

But here, love and compassion,

which bind up the fractured-hearts.87

There, amassed88 locusts, Ex 10:1ff

560 which covered the eye89 of the land.

But here, abundant love,

which opens the eyes of the blind.

There, the darkness, which held sway Ex 10:21ff

three days within Egypt.

565 Here, the light, which shone forth

three days within Sheol.90

There, the firstborns who were slain Ex 11:1ff

in a single night with great wrath.

Here, the firstborns who are marked

570 in the true church in heaven.

There, horrors which are quite harsh.

Here, true blessings.

The people, whom he delivered from Egypt

87 Perhaps, more literally “the heart of the fractured [people].” 88 89 Syriac idiom uses the word “eye” (ʿaynā) where English idiom prefers “face.” 90 Lines 567-590 are missing in F. See Chapter 4.

316

from slavery and labor—

575 the people alone, he saved;

and the land alone, he changed.

For if they kept the commandment,

they would enter to inherit the land.

But if they transgressed the law,

580 they would fall and crawl from the land.

But, their fall was nothing,

for they fell from land only.

But ours is much greater—

our inheritance as well as our fall.

585 For when our Savior promised us

the high kingdom in heaven,

[He said] if we are diligent, we will inherit with Him

glory and light in the bridal chamber;

but if we succumb, we will fall again

590 from an immeasurable height.

So, let us not flee from the tale

of how rash the ancients were;

and how justice prosecuted

their wanton deeds;91

595 and how we were more rash

than the ancient generations;

91 Reading with W. F reads, “the crimes of the haughty.”

317

and how much grace bears

[our] debts, though we are unworthy.

The people made a calf in the wilderness

600 and wantonly worshipped it.

They had worshipped a single calf

and were slain without mercy.

But, innumerable idols

are worshipped among us!

605 Oppression92 of various kinds

is the idolatry which dwells with us.

But it dwells with us in secret

and the mind whispers supplication to it.

The wanton [people] spurned Moses,

610 who brought them out from Egypt.

We have angered the Lord of Moses,

who redeemed us from death unto life.

A life-filled law,

Moses ascended to bring them.

615 They spurned his labor upon the mountain

and the supplication of his prayers.

For more than the mountain which burned, Ex 19:18

a dead calf they adored.

A joy-filled place,

92 Reading with W. F reads, “greed.”

318

620 the Messiah ascended to prepare for us.

We spurned His passion and His rising;

His resurrection and also His ascension.

For instead of the life which He promised,

Death, the slayer, is dear to us.

625 And instead of the commandment He gave us,

to cherish all His members,

we unsheathed jealousy’s sword

to slaughter our members.

Moses descended and found

630 that they spurned the labor which he swiftly brought.

He unsheathed the sword to slaughter

those who spurned and oppressed.

Jesus is coming to find

whoever spurned his commandment.

635 With a sword of fire, He will slaughter him

and cast him into torment.

All the People in the battle

were troubled by Achan. Jo 7:1ff

When he stole [and] hide some devoted things93

640 the camp burnt completely,

until the thief was interrogated

93 Singular.

319

and went out from among them.

And the whole camp conquered

and rejoiced that they were victorious in battle.

645 How many thieves are among us

and no one takes it to heart!

Phineas, a zealous man,

slew wanton Zimri Nm 25:7ff

and warded off death from the People

650 and victory was accredited to them.

The horn of the wanton is raised,94

but no one rebukes among us.

For everyone is afraid ⸤of his neighbor,95

lest he be reproached a little.96

655 Elijah girt his loins

and exposed the unjust king, 1 Kgs 1:8; 21:1ff

who became bitterly grieved

on account of the injustice he performed.

Namely, a poor man was murdered

660 and deprived of his property.

And the truthful man opened his mouth

and exposed the injustice of the pompous man.

[Ahab’s] blood was shed on earth

94 An idiom, which likely means, “the wanton are praised.” 95 Reading with W. F reads, “in his heart.” 96 F adds, “His hand is placed upon his mouth/ and he ceases from reproof.”

320

just as he shed the blood of the oppressed.

665 [Elijah] was not overawed by his silk

as he reproved and accused him.

He was not abashed by his fine linen

when he reproached and corrected him.

Nor was he daunted by his diadem

670 when he shamed and exposed him.

He did not respect his appearance,

as he publicly disgraced him.

Nor did he tremble before his authority

as he decreed death before him.

675 He did not shake before his grandeur,

as he summoned dogs to his blood.

Nor did he quake before his majesty,

when he pierced him with a verbal sword.

He did not shudder before the unjust97 man,

680 when he shot sharp arrows at him.

And he offered a restraining shackle

to the king who transgressed the law.

He withheld from him downpour and dew

and his fields’ fruit withered. cf. line 1f

685 He robbed him of rain

and choked his farms’ seed,

97 Reading with W. F reads, “pompous.”

321

because he had robbed an oppressed man

of the vineyard which he had worked and planted.

He robbed his ostentation

690 and broke his haughtiness.

And because he dared to disfigure

the image which Goodness had painted,

his image was disfigured and fell

in the battle at Ramoth-Gilead. 1 Kgs 22:29ff

695 But today, greater is the injustice

which is performed among us!

For many are Ahab’s peers,

but Elijah’s peers are absent.

For the orphan and the widow are despoiled

700 and even the poor are pillaged.

And there is no one to prosecute their cases

against the despoiler and unjust.

Also, there is no one to rescue the persecuted

from wicked persecutors.

705 And there is no one to save the afflicted

from treacherous afflicters.

For everyone fears for himself

lest his honor be diminished.

322

Everyone is afraid and is seeking shelter,98

710 lest his authority be weakened.99

⸤For he loved100 temporal authority

more than eternal authority.

And we love honoring a day more than

honoring the only begotten.

715 And we prefer a wooden throne

to that one promised to the apostles. √šlḥ

And we accept the honor

which is from unjust rulers. √šlṭ

The future blessings are better

720 than those deemed worthy of a royal residence.

Yet everyone considers this

in his crafty thinking:

“[If] I am dear to the chief,

what will come to me [from] the oppressed?

725 [If] I am loved by the ruler,

what [will come] to me [from] the poor?

What [will come] to me [if] I blame the afflicted

or bring a case against the persecuted?

The ruler does not hate me,

730 so let his rage cleave the orphan.

98 Reading with W. F reads, “frightened.” 99 Reading with W. F reads, “destroyed.” 100 Reading with W. F reads, “We love.”

323

Let not my own honor decrease,

and let the Spirit take the widow.”

The heart of the pompous

performs these harsh sins.

735 ˻For they are drunk and twisted101

with pomp and extravagance.

And since they were haughty and lofty,

they have forever vanished.

Among us there is no one like Elijah,

740 who was drunk on the love of the Most High,

who hated the wealth of Ahab’s house

and chose for himself poverty.

He hated the pleasures of meals

and loved fasting and prayer.

745 He hated soft clothing

and loved hard stones.

He hated the cushioning of beds

and laid himself upon the dust.

He left lofty buildings

750 and descended to valley-depths.102

He hated handsome habitations

and crept inside mountains.

101 Reading with F. W reads, “For [he bound] them and they are chained.” The bracketed reading is supplied from marginalia in what appears to be the same hand. 102 Reading lines 749-750 with W. F reads, “He hated soft blankets / and prostrated himself on a stone.”

324

He hated bright bed chambers

and loved dark caves.

755 He hated aged wines

and drank103 a drop of water.

He hated the indulgence of meals

and begged for a morsel of bread.

He hated the company of people

760 and dwelt with animals.

He sent his love to heaven,

secretly while he was on earth.

Also, heaven yoked104 him

to a chariot of fire openly.

765 And it carried him swiftly

and made him dwell in the exalted realm.

And since his heart secretly ascended,

his body also openly ascended.

By his prayer and supplication,

770 may we be deemed worthy to see the watchers’ realm.

103 Reading with W. F reads, “asked for.” 104 Reading with W. F reads, “sent.”

325

Appendix B

A Parallel Edition

Another Homily of Reproof

Attributed to St. Ephrem the Syrian

326

The following text, which this dissertation has simply titled Another Homily of Reproof,1 is the second sermon in Beck’s volume Des Heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermones II.2

Unfortunately, Beck’s edition of this text has proved to be an inadequate basis for translation.

The two surviving manuscripts (Beck’s W and F) present two slightly different revisions.3

Beck’s base manuscript (F) is significantly sorter than W and exhibits some modification of line order and content. Beck accounts for the additional passages found in W by placing short passages in the footnotes and two lengthy passages in the appendices. Beck also notes W’s frequent alternate line content and ordering, but his notes are often misleading, incomplete, or simply wrong. This is particularly problematic for the last twenty lines of the text, where it is impossible to reconstruct W from Beck’s footnotes.

In general, Beck’s reproduction of the base manuscript is fairly accurate, though not perfect. Yet his presentation of W found in the notes has numerous discrepancies. Most of these are entirely inconsequential and not necessarily errors (e.g. alternate word order, alternate spellings, misplaced diacritics). And some are careless, but of little consequence (e.g. various inaccuracies pertaining to prefixed conjunctions,4 pronominal suffixes, plural markers, and rēš/dālat dots). And Beck occasionally fails to note some alternate readings, which have a localized effect upon the passage’s interpretation. Additionally, some passages that Beck was unable to read due to manuscript degradation were able to be read by the present editor, who had access to high resolution digitized images of the manuscripts.

1 On this title, see Chapter 4. 2 Beck, Sermones II, 40-55. 3 See Chapter 4. 4 In W, Beck consistently mistakes the red and black four-point punctuation mark (܀) for a waw. This might indicate that he worked from a facsimile that poorly rendered the punctuation. A poorly made facsimile of W could account for many of the errors made by this generally very careful textual scholar.

327

The errors found in Beck’s edition are quite frequent, but minor. And ultimately, these small errors probably do not warrant a new edition. Yet the text commented upon in chapter seven and translated in Appendix A favors the readings found in W, which are not always accounted for in Beck’s edition.5 Furthermore, the line numbers used in the translation correspond to the numbers used in this transcription, but not to Beck’s numbers. Thus, by providing the reader with this edition (or transcription), the present author was able to present a commentary and translation free from the clutter of notes of textual emendation.

Both manuscripts were reproduced as accurately as possible (including diacritics and punctuation), even where there are obvious errors. Each of the scribes had their own idiosyncrasies. These idiosyncrasies are reproduced, but should not present a problem to the reader. Yet one in particular should be briefly noted. F’s scribe consistently does not use plural marker on marrīrē, even where context requires a plural.

5 For the reasons behind favoring the later manuscript, see Chapter 4.

328

BM 12176 (F) Vat. Sir. 464 (W)

ܬܕ : ܬܬ̇ ܘ ܪܗܘܙ

{1r⸰a} ܐ ܝܕ {104v} . ܐ ܝܕ

ܿ . ̣ ܐ ܕ : ܼ ̣ ܕ 1 ̇ ܿ . ܐ ܒ ̣ ܕ . ܐ ܒ ܼ ܕ 2

̈ ܕ ܘܗ ܕ : ̈ ܕ ܘܗ ̇ ܕ 3

. ̈ ܘܘ ܪܪܕ ܀̈ ܘ̇ ܘ ܕܪܕ 4

. ܕܪ ܝܐܕ ܐܕ : ܕܪ ܝ̣ ܐܕ ܐ 5 ̈ ̈ . ܘ ܝܘܪ . ̣ ܘ ܝ̣ ܘܪ 6

.ܥ̇ ܗܬܘܘ :ܥ̇ ܗܬܘܘ 7 ܿ ܀ ܼ 8

. ̈ ܘ : ܗ̈ ̈ ܕ 9 ̇ ̇ . ̈ ܕ . ܗ̣̈ ܕ ܘ̇ 10

. ܘ ̈ : ܘ ̇ 11

. ܗ ܘܗ ܀ ̇ ܗ ܘܗ 12

. ܘ : ܘ 13

ܗ ܘܗ .ܗ ̣ ܘܗ̣ ܼ 14

. ܘ : ܘ 15

. ܕ ܕܪ ܀ ܕ ܕܪ ܼܿ 16 ̇ . ̣ ܘ {105r} :̣ ܘ 17

329

. ܬ ܘ ܝܗ̣ . ܗܬܘ 18

ܙܘܘ : ܙܘܘ ̇ 19

. ̣ ܘ ܪܘ ܀̣ ܪܘ ܸ ܘ ̣ 20

ܘ : ܘ ܨ̇ ܘ 21 ̇ . ܘ ܗܬ . ݁ܘ ܗܬ ̣ 22

. ܘ ܪ : ܘ ܪܘ 23

.ܪܘ ܘ ܀ ܪܘ ܘ ̣ 24 ̈ ̈ ܿ ̣ ܘܗ ܪ : ܼ ܘܗ ܪ 25

. ̈ ܕܙ ̈ ܘ . ̈ ̣ ܕܙ ̈ ܸ ܘ 26

. ̈ ܕ ܕ : ̈ ܕ ܕ 27

. ܦܐ ܪ ܀ ܼ ܪ ܦܐ ̇ 28 ̇ ܘ : ̣ ܸ ܘ 29

. ̈ ܕ . ̈ ܕ ̇ 30

. ܗܘܐ ܕ : ܗܘܐ ̇ ܕ ̇ ܘ̇ 31

̈ ܀ ̈ ̈ 32

. ̈ ܛ : ̈ ܛ̇ ܕ 33

. ̈ ܢ . ܗ̈ ܢ 34 ̈ ܿ .ܝܗ ܝܗ ܕ : ܝܗ̈ ܝܗ ܼ ܕ 35

.ܩ ܘ ܝܗܘܕ ܀ܩ̣ ܘ ̣ ܝܗܘ̈ ܕ 36 ܿ . ̣ ܕ ܕ : ܼ ܕ ̣ ̣ ܕ 37

. ܗܪ ܘ . ܗܪ ̣ ܘ 38

330

.ܝܗܨܘ ܘܐ ܘ :ܝ̣ ܗܨܘ ̣ ܘܐ ̣ ܘ 39 ̇ . ܘ ܒܘܬܕ ܀ ̣ ܒܘܬܕ 40 ̇ ̇ . ܗܘ ̣ ܕ : ܗܘ̣ ̣ ܕ 41 ̈ ̈ ܿ . ̣ ܕ . ̇ ܼ ܕ 42

. ܘܬ ̣ ܘ ܕܨܐ : ܘܬ ̣ ܘ ܕܨܐ 43

. ܗ̈ ܘ ܀ ܗ̈ ̣ ܘ 44

. ܢܐ ܕ ̈ ܕܙ : ̣ ܢܐ ܕ ̈ ܕ 45

.ܘܗ ܦܐ ܘ .ܘܗ ܘܘܗ ̣ ܘ 46

. ܝܗܘ ̈ ܘ ܐܘ ̣ ܘ ̣ : ܘ̣ ܘ ̣ ܘ ̣ ܐܘ ̣ 47

. ܢܘܗ ܗܬ ܕܕ ܀ ܢܘܗ ܗܬ ܕ 48

. ܝ ܗܘܘ ܢܐܘ : ܘ̣ ܘ ܬ݀ [] ܢܐܘ 49

. ܘܪ ܢܐ ܦܐ . ܘܪ ܐ 50 ܿ .ܢ ܘ̈ ܘ {105v} :ܢܘ̈ ܘܼ 51

.ܢ ܗ ܕܕ ܀ ̈ ܗܘ ܕ 52 ̈ ܿ ܢ ܘܕ ܐ ܘܘ :ܢܘ̈ ܕܐ ̣ ܘܼ ܘ 53

. ܢܕ ܕܕ . ܕ̈ ܕ 54

: ܢܘ̈ ܐ ̣ ܘ 55

܀ ̈ ܕ 56

. ܢܘ ܘ : ܢܘ ̣ ܘ 57

. ܢ ܬ ܘ ܕܕ . ܘ ܕ 58 ̈ ̈ ܢ ܘܕ ܬ ܝܗܘ : ܢܘܕ ܬ ̣ ܘ 59

331

. ܢܪ ܕ ܀ܢܪ ̣ ܕ 60 ̈ ̇ ̈ . ܢܘܗܬ ̣ ܕܘ . ܢܘܗܬ ̣ ܕܘ 61

. ܗܬܕ . ܗܬܕ 62

ܢ ܘ̈ ܦܐ ܨܘ : ܢܘ̈ ܒܘܬ ܼܨܿ ܘ 63

. ܝܗܕ ܬ ܀ܝܗܕ ܬ̣ 64

. ܢܘ ܒܘܬ ܘ : ܢܘ ܒܘܬ ܼܿ ܘ 65 ܿ .ܢ ܕ . ܢܼ ̣ ܕ 66

. ܕ ܘ : ܕ ܼܿ ܘ 67

. ܢܘܕܗ ܀ ܢܘ̈ ܕܗ 68

{1r⸰2} ܗ ܗܬܘ :ܗ̇ ܬܐܘ 69

. ܢܘ ܦܘܨ . ܢܘ ܦܘܨ 70 ̈ . ܢܘ ܘܪܘ : ܢܘ̈ ܘܪܼܿ ܘ 71

. ܕ ܬܘ ܀ ̇ ܕ ܬܘ̇ 72

. ܘܘܗ ܕ : ܘܘܗ ̇ ܕ 73

. ܘ ܗ̇ ܘܪ . ܼ ܘܪ 74

. ܘܘܗ ܕܪ ܐܬܘ : ܘܘܗ ̇ ܐܬܘ 75

. ܬ ܢܘ̈ ܀ ܬ ܢܘ̈ 76

. ܬܐ ̈ : ܼܿ ܬܐ ̈ 77 ̈ ̈ ܿ . ܘܘܗ ܬܐܕ . ܘܘܗ ܼ ܬܐܕ 78

. ܘܘܗ ̈ : ܘܘܗ ܘ̣ ̈ 79 ܿ . ̈ ܘܘܗ ܐܕ ܀ ̈ ܘܘܗ ܼ ܐܕ 80

332

̇ . ܘܘܗ ̣ : ܘܘܗ ̣ 81

. ܘܘܗ ܕ ܕ . ̣ ܕ ܕ 82

. ̈ ̈ : ̈ ܦܐ ̈ 83

. ̈ ܘ ܀ ̈ ܦܐ 84

. ̈ ܙ̈ : ̈ ܦܐ ̈ ܙ 85 ̈ ̈ ̈ ̈ ̈ ̈ . ܐܘ ܘ {106r} .ܐܘ ܘ 86

ܘ ܕ ܗ : ܢ[ ]ܫܘ ̣ ܕ ܗ 87

. ̈ ܕܙ ܪ ܕ ܀ ̈ ܕܙ ܪ ܕ 88 ܿ ܇ ܪܘ ܘܘܗ ܗܕ : ܪܘ ܘܘܗ ܗܼ ܕ 89

. ̇ . ̣ ̇ 90

. ܐ ܪܕ : ܐ ̇ ܪܕ 91 ̈ ܿ . ܕ ܀ ̈ ܼ ܕ 92 ܿ ܬܐܕ ܐ ܐ ܕ :ܼ ܬܐܕ ܐ ܕ 93

. . ܝܗ̈ ܕܗ ̇ 94

. ܪܕ : ̇ ܪܕ 95

. ܕ ܀ ̣ ܕ 96

. [ ]ܒ ܦܐ ܘ : ̇ ܦܐ ̈ 97

. ܗܬܕ ܬܪ . ܗܬܕ ܬܪ 98

. ܢܘ̈ ܩܪܕ : ܢܘ̈ ܩܪܕ 99

. ܢܘ ܪ ܗ ܀ܢܘ̈ ܕ ܪ ܗ̇ 100

ܢ ܘܕ ܘ : ܢܘܕ 101

333

̈ ̇ ܿ . ܢܘ ̈ . ܢܘ ܼ 102 ܿ .ܐ ܦܐ :ܐ ܦܐ ܼ 103 ̇ ̇ . ܕ ܘܐ ܚܘܕ ܘ ܀̣ ܕ ܘܐ ܚܘܕ ܘ 104

ܘ : ܘ ̇ 105

. ܘܗ ܪ ̈ ܘ . ܘܗ̇ ܪ ܝܗ̈ ܘ 106

. ܕ ܘ : ܬ ̇ 107 ̇ . ܙ̣ ܘ ܀ ܙ ܘ 108

. ܢܘ ̇ : ܢܘ ̇ 109

. 6 ܪܕ ܘ . ̇ ܪܕ ܘ 110

. ܢܘܗܪ ܘ : ܢܘܗܪ ܼܿ 111

. ܪܕ ܘ ܀ ̣ ܪܕ ܘ 112

. ܒܘܬ : ܢܘ̈ ̇ 113

. ܘ . ܘ 114

. : ܢܘ̈ ̇ 115 ܿ ܿ . ܕ ܫܘ ܀ ܕܼ ܫܼ ܘ 116

:ܗܪ ̣ ܗܪ ܬ 117

. ܕ ܗܪܘ 118

.ܘ ܢܘ :ܘ ܢܘ 119 ̇ ̇ . ܪ ܘ {106v} ܀ ܪ ܘ 120

ܢ ܘܕ ̈ ܘ : ܢܘܕ ̈ 121

. ܬ ̇ ̇ : ܬ ̇ ̇ 122

6 sic

334

ܿ . ܢܘ ܘܘܗ ܐܕ : ܼ ܢܘ ܘܘܗ ̣ ܐܕ 123

. ܪ ܀ ̇ ܪ 124

ܢ ܘ̈ ܕܐܕ ̈ ܬ : ܢܘ̈ ܕܐܕ ̈ ܬ 125

. ܪܕ ܗ̇ ܙ .̇ ܪܕ ܙ 126 ܿ . ܢܐ ܕ : ܘܘܗ ܼ ܕ 127

. ܘܘܗ ܬܘ ܀ ̣ ܘܘܗ ܬܘ 128 ܿ :ܗ̇ ܘܘܗ ܼ ܕ 129

. ܘ ̈ ̈ 130

:̣ ܘܘܗ ܬܘ 131

. ̈ ܕ ̈ ܀ ̈ ̈ ̈ 132

. ܨܕ ܐ̈ ܕܘ

ܪ : ܪ ̇ 133

. ܢܘܘ ܢܘ̈ . ܢܘܘ ܢܘ̈ 134

̣ ̇ ܕ : ̣ ̣ ̣ ܕ 135

{1r⸰c} [ ܝ] ܢܘ ܀ ܢܘ 136

[ ܒ ] ܢܘ : ܕ̈ ܢܘ ̇ 137

[ ]ܫܕ ܕ [ ] . ܢܘ̈ ܕ ܕ ̇ ܘ 138

. ̇ [ ] : ܥ̇ ܕ 139

. [ ܪ]ܘ ܀ ̇ ܪ ܗܘ 140

ܐ [ ] ܕ : ܘܗ ̣ ܕ 141

[ ] ܗ [ܚ ] . ̣ ܗ ̇ ܘ 142

335

[ ܝ] ܦܐ ܗ : ܗ̇ ܦܐ ̇ 143

.ܬ ܢܘܘ ܀ ̇ ܬ ܢܘ ܦܐܘ 144 ̇ . ̇ : ̇ ܘ ܐ ̇ 145

.ܘܙ ܘ ܗ .ܘܙ ܘ ܗ 146 ̇ . ܙܕ ܙܘ : ܙܕ ̇ ܼܿ ܙܘ 147

ܢ ܘ ̈ ܕ ̈ ܀ ܢܘ̈ ܕ ̈ 148

ܢ ܘ̈ ܕܗܕ ̈ ܘ : ܢܘ̈ ܕܗܕ ̈ ܘ 149

. ܕ̇ . ̇ ܕ 150

. ܦܐ ܕ {107r} .̣ ܪ ܦܐ ܕ 151

. ܕ ̇ ܨ ܐ ܀ ܕ ̇ ܨ ܐ 152

. ܘܘܗ ܕ : ̣ ܘܘܗ ̇ ܕ 153

. ̣ ܕ ܘ̣ ܗܕ 154

. ܘܘܗ ܘ : ̣ ܘܘܗ ̣ ܪܘ 155

܀ ܙܕ ̣ ܝ̣ ܗ 156

: ܢܘ̈ ܕܗܕ 7 ̣ 157 ܿ . ܙܼ ܪܕ ܕ 158

: ܢܘܕ ܘ 159

܀ ̇ ̇ 160 ̇ ̇ ܿ ̇ : ܼ 161

. ܙ ܙܘ . ܙ ܙܘ 162

. ܗ ܦܐ : ܗ̇ ܦܐ ̇ 163

7 Sic. Although this form is not found in Syriac lexica, it is found in other Aramaic dialects.

336

. ̈ ̈ ܕ ܀ ̈ ̈ ܕ 164

. ̇ : ̇ 165 ̇ . ܐܘ . ̇ ܐܘ 166

. ܦܐ : ̇ ܦܐ ܼܿ 167

. ܨ ܦܐ ܪ ܀ ܨܐܘ ̇ ܪ 168

. ܐ ܦܐ ܘ̇ ܪ : ̇ ܦܐ ̇ ܘܪ 169

. ܙܘ ܦܐ . ܙܘ̇ ܦܐ ̇ 170

. ̈ ܦܐ ̈ : ̈ ܦܐ ̈ 171

. ܦܐ ܀ ܦܐ 172

. ܐ ̈ ܙ ܢܘ :ܐ ̈ ܙ ܢܘ 173

. ܕ ܬ . ܕ̈ ܬ 174

ܢ ܘ : ܢܘ ̇ ̇ 175

. ܢܘܘ̈ ܕ ܀ ܢܘܘ̈ ܕ̈ 176

: ܢܘ 177

. ̇ ̇ 178

. ܪ ܢܘ : ܪ ̇ ܢܘ 179

. ܝܗ ܘ ܀ܝܗ ̇ ܘ 180

. ̇ ̈ ܐ ܬ : ̇ ̈ ܐ ܬ݀ 181

. ܐ ̇ ܘ . ܝܗ̈ ̇ ܘ 182

: ̇ ܼܿ ܘܪ 183

܀ ̇ ܕ̇ ܥ̇ ܐܙܘ 184

337

: ܢܘܪ̈ ܕ ܬ 185

. ܦܐ 186

. ܢܘܘ ̈ ܘ : ܢܘܘ̈ ܘ 187 ̇ . ܕ̈ {107v} ܀ܕ̈ ̇ 188

. ̈ ܐ :̇ ܐ ̇ 189

.ܝܗ ̈ ܐ ܦܐ . ܝܗ̈ ܐ ܦܐ 190

ܝ ܗ ܐ ܒܘܬ ̇ :ܝܗ ܐ ܒܘܬ ̇ 191

. ܦܐܘ ܀ ܦܐ 192

. ܕ : ̇ ܕ 193 ̇ ̇ ܿ ̇ ܘ ܚ . ܼܿ ܘ ܚܼ 194

. ܠ : ܠ 195

. ܠ ܐܘ ܀ ܠ ܐܘ 196

. ܘ ܦܐ :ܘ ܦܐ 197

. ܪܕܕ ܠ . ܪܕܕ ܠ̣ 198 ̈ ̇ ̈ .ܝܗ ܠ ܐܘ :ܝܗ ܠ̣ ܐܘ 199

. ̇ ܠܐܬ ܐܘ ܀ ̇ ̈ ̣ ܐܬ ܐܘ 200

ܘ : ܘ 201

. ܗ̇ ܘ ̇ ܠܐܬ . ܗ̇ ̈ ܘ ̇ ̈ ̣ ܐܬ 202

. ̈ ܦܐܘ : ̈ ܦܐ 203

. ܘ ̈ ܀ ܘ ̈ ̈ 204

.ܬܕ ܢܗ ܘ ܢܐܘ :ܬܕ ܢܗ ܘ ܢܐ 205

338

. ܠܕ ܘܗ̇ ܕ ܘ ܗ̣ ܕ : ܠܕ ܘܗ̇ ܕ ܘܗ ܕ 206 ̈ ܿ ܐ ܬܐ ܗ : ܐ ܘܼ ܬܐ ܗ 207 ̈ ̈ . ܢܘܕ ܐܘ ܀ܢܘܕ ̣ ܐܘ 208 ̇ . ܘ ܕ : ܕ ̇ 209

. ܕ ܘ . ܕ ܘܐ ܘ̇ 210

. ̈ : ܢܘ̈ ܕܗ ̇ ܘ 211

. ܢܘ[ܠ] [] ܕ ܀ ܢܘ̈ ܕܘ ܢܘܕ 212

. ̇ ܕ ܐ[]ܐ ܕ : ̇ ܕ ܐ ܕ ̇ 213

. ܕ ܘܗ .ܼܿ ܕ ܘܗ 214

{1v⸰a} [ ] ܐ ܕܕ ܐ : ̇ ܢܐ ܐ 215

. [ ] ܗ[ ]ܕ [ܐ ] ܀ ܬ ܗ̈ 216

ܕ ܒ[]ܬ [ܡ ] : ܕ ܪ ܐ ܢܐܘ 217

. ܬ [ܗܬ ] . ܦܐ 218

[ ܪܘ ] ̇ ܕ : ܪ ܼܿ ܕ 219

[ܬ] ܘܗ ܕ ܀ ܘܗ ܕ 220

. ܐ[ ܢ]ܘ ܙܕ [ ] : ܘ ܙܕ ܐ 221

ܕ̈ [ܢ ] ̈ . ܕ̈ ܬ 222

ܘ [ ܕ ܕ] : ̇ ܘ ̇ ܕ ܐܕ 223

. [ܢ]ܘ ܙ ܀ ܘ ܙ 224 ܿ ܬ̈ ܝܗܘ[ ] {108r} : ܬ̈ ܝܗ̈ ܼ 225

. ܝܗ ̇ ܘ . ܝܗ ̇ ܘ ܘ 226

339

ܬ ̇ ܕ ܐ ܦܐ :ܬ ̇ ܕ ܐ ܦܐ 227 ̇ ܿ . ܘ ܀ܘ ܼ 228

ܕ ܘ ܗ̇ ܘ :ܕ ܘܗ ܕ 229

. ܘ ܬ . ܘ ܬ ̇ 230

. ܕܗ̈ ܢܐ : ̈ ܢܐ ̈ 231

̈ ܕ ܦܐ ܀ ܢܘ̈ ܕܗܕ ܘ 232

ܢ ܘ [ ] ܕ : ܢܘ ̇ ܕ 233

ܢ ܘ̈ ܘ . ܢܘ̈ ̣ ܘ 234

ܢ ܘ : ܢܘ 235

ܢ ܘ ܬܐ ܘ ܀ ܢܘ̈ ܬܐ ܘ 236

ܘ ܕ ܘ : ܘ ܕ 237

. ܢܘ ̈ ܕ . ܢܘ̈ ܕ 238

. ܘ ܩ ܕ ܘ : ܘ ܩ̇ ܕ ܘܗ̇ 239 ̈ . ܕ ܀ ̣ ܕ ̣ ̈ 240 ̇ ̇ . ܘ ܕ ܐ ܦܐܘ : ̣ ܕ ܘܐ ܕ ܒܘܬ 241

. ܘ ܕ : ̣ ܘ ̣ ܕ 242

. ܕ : ܼܿ ܕ 243

̈ ܩܪ ܀ ̈ ܩܪ 244

. ܘ : ܘ ܘ 245 ̇ ̇ . ܘ : ̣ 246

ܘ . ̣ ܘ 247

340

. ܀ ̇ ̇ 248

. ܕ ̈ ܕܙ : ܕ ̈ ܕܙ 249

. ܗ̈ ܙܘ ̈ ܘ ̈ ܬ . ܗ̈ ܙܘ ̈ ܬ ̈ ܘ 250

. ܨ̈ ܘ ܘ ̈ : ܨ̈ ܘ ܘ ̈ 251

. ܘ ̈ ܘ ܀ ܘ ̈ ܘ 252

. ̈ ܘ ̈ ܕܘ . ̈ ܘ ̈ ܕ 253

. ܬܕ ܕ̈ ܘ . ܬܕ ܕ ̈ ܘ 254

. ܬܗܕ ̇ ̈ ܘ : ܬܗܕ ̈ ̇ 255

. ܬܕܙܕ ̇ ܘ ܀ ܬܕܙܕ ̇ ܘ 256

.ܪܗ ̈ ܘ ̈ ܐ : ܪܗ ̈ ̈ 257

. ܪܘ ܿ ܿ . ܕ . ܼ ܼ ܕ 258

ܕ ܪܘ : ܕ ܪܘ 259 ̈ ܀ ̣ ܕ ܗ 260

ܕܘܐ ̇ ܕ ̈ : ܕܘܐ ̇ ܕ ̈ ̇ 261

. ܢܘ ܗܬܕ . ܢܘ ̇ ܗܬܕ 262 ̈ . ܝ̈ ܢܘ {108v} : ܕ ܢܘ 263 ̇ ܿ ̈ ̇ . ܪ ̈ ܀ ܪ ܼ 264

. ܕܕ ܘ : ܕܕ ܘ ̇ 265

. ܘ . ܘ ̇ ܕ 266 ̈ . ̈ ܝܗ ̈ ܘ : ܝܗܕ 267

341

̇ . ̈ ܕ ܀ ̣̈ ܕ ̇ 268

. ܝܗ̈ ܐ ܘ : ܝܗ̈ ܐ ܘ 269 ܿ . ܕ ܙܘ . ܐ ܼ 270

: ̈ ̇ ܝܗܘ ܪܘ ܘ 271

܀ ̇ ̇ 272

: ܕܪ ܘ ̣ ܕ 273

. ̇ ܕ ܗ̈ 274

. ܕ ܕ .ܕܨܐܬܕ ܕ 275

. ܘ ܘܕܘ ܀ ܸ ܕ ̣ ܪܗ 276

. ܕ ܘ̇ ܕܨܬܕ

. ܙ ̇ ܕ : ̇ ܕ ܙܕ 277

. ܗ̇ ̈ ܪ . ܗ̈ ܪ̇ ̇ 278

: ̈ ܒܘܬ ܝܗܘ 279 ̈ ܀ ܗܕ ܬܼܿ ܘ 280

: ̇ ܘ ̇ 281

: ܢܘ̈ ܘܨܕ ̇ ܘ 282

. ܕ ܘ ܕ ̇ ܘ 283

. ܢܘܬ ܀ ܢܘ̣̈ ܬ 284

: ܢܘ̈ ܕ ܘ 285

ܕ ̈ ̇ ̈ ܕ : ܕ ̣ ̈ ̇ ̈ ܕ 286

. ̈ ܢܘܘ . ̈ ܢܘܘ 287

342

. ܘ̈ ܐܕ ܀ ̈ ܕ 288

ܢ ܘܗܗ̈ ܝܘܗ̈ ܕ : ܢܘܗܗ̈ ܝܘܗ̈ ̣̈ ܕ 289

ܢ ܘ ̈ ܕ . ܢܘ̈ ܕ ̈ 290

ܡܗܐ ܘܗ ̣ ܕ ܐ :ܡܗܐ ܘܗ ̣ ܕ ܐ 291

. ܡܘܕ ܘ ܬ ܀ ܡܘܕ ܘ ܬ 292

. ܗ̣ ܬܐ ̇ ܕ :̇ ݀ ܗܬܐܕ 293 ܿ .̇ ̈ ܕ . ̇ ̇ ̈ ܼܿ ܕ ܼ 294

{1v⸰b} . ܘ ܪ ܗ̇ ܘ : ܘ ܪ ܗ̇ ̣ ܘ 295

. ̇ ܕܕ ܘܪ 8܀̇ ܕ ܘܪ 296

. ܦܐ ܗ̇ ܘ : ܦܐ ܗ̇ ܘ 297 ̇ ̇ ݀ . ܗܬ ܕ ܬܘ̣ ܗܘ {109r} .ܗܬ ̣ ܕ ܬܘ̣ ܗܘ 298

. ̈ ̇ ܬܐܕ : ̈ ̇ ̇ ܬܐܕ 299 ̇ . ܪܨܕ ̇ ܐܘ ܀ ̣ ܨܕ ̇ ܐܘ 300

: ̣ ܕ ̇ ̇ 301

. ܕ ̇ ܐܘ . ̣ ܕ ̇ ̣ ܐܘ 302

. ܪܐ ̇ ܬܘ̣ ܗ ̣ : ܪܐ ̇ ݀ ̣ ̇ 303

. ̇ ܘܪ ܘ ܀ ̇ ܘܪ ̇ ̣ ܘ 304

. ̈ ܘ : ̣ ܘ 305

. ܐ ܘܨ . ̣ ܐ ̈ ܘܨ 306 ܿ ̈ ܕ : ̈ ܼ 9 ̣ ܕ 307

8 Marginal variant: ̇͢ ͮ Α̈ ͮܕܕ. 9 sic

343

̈ ̈ . ̈ ܐܘ ܀ ̈ ̣ ܐܘ 308 ܿ ̇ . ܘ ܐ ܐ ܕ : ܼ ܘ ܐ ܕ 309

.̇ ̈ ̈ ܘ .̇ ̈ ̇ ̈ ܘ 310

. ܘܪܘ ̇ ̣ ܕ : ܘܪܘ ̇ ̇ 311

. ܗܨܘ ܀ ܗܨ̇ ܘ 312

̇ ܘ : ̇ ܘ 313

. ̈ ܕ ̈ ̈ . ̈ ܕ ̈ ̈ 314 ܿ ܘ ܼ ܘ 315

. ̈ ܀̇ ̈ ܪ 316

. ̈ ܚܘܕ ܘܗ ܘ :̈ ܚܘ̇ ܕ ܘܗ ܘ 317

.̈ ܕ ܦܐܘ . ̈ ̇ ܕ ܐ 318 ܿ ܘ : ܕ ܼ ̣ ܘ 319 ̈ . ܢܐ ܕ ܀ ̈ ܕܙ ܢܘ ̣ ܕ 320

. ܕ ܕܗ ܦܐ ܐ . ̇ ܬܘ 321

. ܢܐ ܘܨ ܕ .ܢܐ ܘܨ̇ ܘ ܘܘܗ ̣ ܘܐ 322 ̇ ܿ . ܐ ܘ ܬܐܘ : ܐ ̣ ܘ ܼ ܬܐܘ 323

. ܘ ܀ ̇ ̇ 324

. ܘܗ ܦܐ ܬܨܘ : ̇ ܕ ܢܐ ̣ ܘ 325 ̈ . ܢܘ ̣ ܕ ̣ ܬܘ . ܢܘ̣̈ ܕ ̣ ܬܘ 326 ̈ ̈ . ̣ ܘ : ̣ ܘ 327

ܘ ܪ ܦܙܪ ܀ ܘ ܪ ̣ ̈ ܘ 328

344

̈ ̈ ܐ ܝܘ : ̣ ̈ ܘ ̣ ܙܘ 329

. ܘ ܪܕ . ܘ ܪܕ ̇ 330

. ܪ ܝ ܗ̇ ܘ : ܪ ܝ̇ܗ ܼܿ ݀ ̣ ܘ 331

. ܕ ܘܪ ̣ ܘ ܀ܕ ܘܪ ݀ ̣ ܘ 332

. ܬ ܝ ̇ ܗ̇ ܘ :ܗ̇ ܬ ܬ݀ ܘܗ ܗ̇ ܘ 333

. ܗ̇ ܪܐ ܬܘ . ܗ̇ ̇ ܗ̇ ܬܘ 334 ̇ ̇ ̇ . ܬ ܘ ܗܬ {109v} :ܗܬܘ ܗ̣ ܪܐ 335 ̈ ܿ . ܕ ̇ ̣ ܘ ܀ ܘ ̇ ݀ ܼ ܘ 336

. ܕ ܬ ̣ : ܕ ܪܬ ݀ ̣ 337 ̈ . ܢܘ̈ ̣ ̣ ܘ . ܘܘܬ ݀ ݀ ̣ ܘ 338

. ̣ ܘ ̣ ܬ : ̣ ܘ ݀ ̣ ܗ̇ ܬ 339

܀ ̇ ܪܐܘ ܀ ̇ ̣ ܪܐܘ 340

. ̣ ̣ ̈ : ̣ ݀ ̣ ̈ 341

. ̈ ܘ . ̈ ܘ 342

. ܕ ܘܪ ܬ݀ ̣ :ܕ ܘܪ ܬ݀ ̣ 343

. ̈ ܕ ܬܘ ܀ܢܘ̈ ܕ ܬܘ 344

.ܘ ܕ :ܘ ܕ 345

. ̣ ܘ ܗܘ . ̣ ܘ ܗܘ 346

. ܬܘ ̣ ܗ : ܬ݀ ܘ ݀ ̣ ܗ 347 ̈ ̈ . ܘ ܘ ܀ ̣ ܕ ܘܘ 348

. ܕ : ܕ 349

345

. ܪܘ . ܪܘ 350

. : ̣ 351

. ܗܬ ̈ ܦܐ ܀ ܗܬ̈ ܦܐ 352

. ܙܕ ܘܗ ̣ : ܙܕ ܘܗ ̣ 353

. ܗܪܘ ܘܙ ܪܐܘ .ܗܪܘ ܗܪ ̣ ܪܐܘ 354

. ܘ ܩ ܐ ܘ : ̇ ܘ ܩ̇ ܕ 355

. ܬܘܗ ܢܘ ܪܘ ܀ ܬܘܗ ̇ ܢܘ ܪܕ 356 ܿ . ܬܐܕ ܘ : ܼ ܬܐܕ ܐ ܘ 357

. ܬ ܗ̇ . ܗ̣ ܐ ݀ ̣ ܬ 358 ̇ . ܕ ܗ̇ : ܕ ܗ̇ ̣ 359 ̈ ̣ ܕ ܐܘ ܘ ܀̣ ܕ ܬ݀ ܘ 10 ݀ ̣ ܘ 360

. ܘܕ ܗ : ܘܕ ܗ̣ 361

ܗܬܬܘ . ܗ̇ ܬ̣ ܬܘ 362

.̈ ܘ ̈ : ̈ ܘ ̈ 363

{1v⸰c} ܕܘ ̈ ܕ ܀ ̈ ܬܕܘ ܕ 364

. ܐ ܢܐ ̣ : ܐ ܢܐ ݀ ̣ 365 ̈ : ܕܘ ܘܘܗܘ . ܢܘ ܘܘ̣ ܗܘ 366

. ܢܘ̈ ܘ ܢܘ

.ܢܘܕ ܘܪ ܬ̣ 367

. ܢܘ̈ ܕ ܘܬ ܦܐ . ܢܘܕ ܘܬ ܦܐ 368 ̇ . ܬ ܘܘܗ ܪܬܐܕ ܀ܬ ܘܘܗ ̇ ܪܬܐܕ 369

10 sic

346

ܗ ܘܘܗ ܬܐܘ 370

ܬ ܘܘܗ ܬܐܕ 371

. ܕܕ ܨ ܐ . ܘܕ ܨ 372

.ܗ ܘܘܗ ܬܐܘ :ܗ ܘܘܗ ܼܿ ܬܐܘ 373

. ܗ ܢܘܨ . ܢܘ̈ ܕ 374 ̇ . ܗܐܕ ܐ ܐ {110r} . ܗ̣ ܐܕ ܐ ܐ 375

. ܗܬܘ ̣ ܬ ܀ ܗܬܪ ݀ ̣ ܬ 376 ̈ .ܬܐ ܢܘ .ܼܿ ܬܐ ܢܘ 377 ̇ . ܕ ܘܘܗ ܕ : ̣ ܕ ܘܘܗ ܕ 378

. ܬܐ ܢܘ ̈ . ̇ ܬܐ ܢܘ̈ 379

̈ ܢܘ ܕ ܀̈ ̣ ܕ 380

. ܐ ܢܘ .ܼܿ ܬܐ ܢܘ 381

ܗ̈ ܘܘܗ ܐ ܕ .ܗ̈ ܘܘܗ ̣ ܐ ܕ 382

ܢ ܘ ܢܘ ܘܘܗ : ܢܘ ܢܘ̈ ܘܘ̣ ܗ 383 ̈ . ܢ ܘ ܘܘܗ ܕ ܀ ܢܘ ̣ ܐ ܕ 384 ̈ ܿ ̈ . ܘܬܐ ܢܘܘ : ܼ ܬܐ ܢܘܘܘ 385 ̈ ̈ . ܢܘ ܕ . ܢܘ ܘܘܗ ̣ ܕ 386 ܿ .ܐ ܢܘ̈ :ܼ ܐ ܢܘ̈ 387

. ̈ ܢܘ ܘܕ ܀ ̈ ܢܘ ܘܘܗ ܘ̣ ܕ 388

.ܬܐ ܢܘ :ܼܿ ܬܐ ܢܘ 389

. ܬܘ ܢܘ ܘܕ . ̣̈ ܢܘ ܘܘܗ ܘ̣ ܕ 390

347

ܿ .ܘܘܗ ܐ ̈ : ܼ ܐ ̈ 391

. ܬܐ ̈ ܢܘܕ ܀̇ ܬܐ ̣ ̈ ܢܘܕ 392 ̈ ̈ ̈ ܕ ܘܘܗ : ̈ ܕ ܘܘ̣ ܗ 393 ̇ . ܢܘ̈ ܘܬܘ . ܢܘ̈ ܘܬ ܐ 394

ܢ ܘ ̈ ܐ ܘܐܘ : ܢܘ̈ ܐ ܘܘ 395 ̈ . ̈ ܘ ܢܘ ̈ ܘ ܀ ܘ ܢܘ̈ ܘ 396

. ܕ̈ ܦܐ ܬܐ : ܕ̈ ܦܐ ܼܿ ܬܐ 397

. ܬܕ ̈ . ܬ̈ ܕ ̈ 398 ̈ ̈ . ܦܐ ܘܘܗ ܬܐ : ̣ ܦܐ ܘܘܗ ܼܿ ܬܐ 399

. ̈ ܕ ܀̈ ܕ 400

. ܪܕ ܒܐ : ܪܕ ܼܿ ܒܐ 401

. ܘ . ܘ 402

. ܕܙܐܕ ܘ̈ :ܕܙ̈ ܐܕ ܘ̈ 403

. ܐܕ ̈ ܘ ܀ ̈ ܐܕ 11 ܘ 404 ̈ ̈ ܿ ̈ . ܬܐܕ : ܝܼ ܬܐܕ 405

. ܬܐܕ ܘ̈ . ܝܬܐܕ ̈ ܘ 406 ̈ ܿ . ܬܐܕ ܬܘ :ܼ ܬܐܕ ܬ̣ 407

. ܬܐܕ ܘ ܀ ܼܿ ܬܐܕ ܘ 408 ̈ ̈ ̈ ̈ ܬܐܘ ܘ ܕ : ܬܐܘ ̣ ܘ ܕ 409

. ̈ ܘ ̈ . ̈ ܘ ̈ 410

.ܠ ܬܐܘ ܝܘܗ̈ ܨܐܘ :̈ ܬܐܘ ܝܘܗ̈ ܝܨ̈ ܐܘ 411

11 Read as plural with Beck and later Greek vowels in W.

348

. ܬܙܘ ܬܘ ܀ ܬܙܘ ܬ 412 ̈ ̈ ܝ ܘܗ̈ ܐܘ ܝܘܗ̈ ܘ {110v} :ܼܿ ܬܐܘ ܝܘܗ̈ ܬܐܘ 413

. ܬܘܘ ܬ . ܬܘܘ ܬ 414

. ̈ ܕ ܪ ܘ : ̈ ܕ ̣ ܪ ̣ ܘ 415 ̈ ̈ ܿ ܘ ܐܘ ܀ ̣ ܘ ܼ ܘ̣ ܐܘ 416

. ܘܨܕ ܘܘ : ܘܨܕ ܘܘ 417

̈ ܘ . ̈ ̈ ܘ ̣̈ 418

ܪ ̣ ܬ : ܪ ݀ ̣ ܬܘ 419

. ̈ ܕ ܀ ̈ ܕ 420

. ܕܨܘ ܪܕ : ̈ ܕ 421 ̈ ̈ . ܘܗ . ̣ ܘܗ̣ 422 ̈ . ̈ ܕ ܪ ܐܕ : ܕ ̣ ܪ ̣̈ ܐܕܘ 423

. ܕ ܪ ܘܗ ܝ ܀ ܕ ̣ ܪ ܘܗ̈ ܝ 424

.ܪܐ ܕ ܘ : ܝܪܐ ̈ ܕ 425

ܐ .ܐ 426

. ܐ̈ ̈ ܕ : ̈ ܬܐ ̈ ܕ 427

̈ ܐ ܀̈ ̈ ܐ 428

ܪ ܬ ܐ ̈ ܕ :ܐ ̈ ܕ 429

.ܕ ܐ̈ ܫ ̈ .̈ ܕܐ ̈ 430 ̈ {2r⸰a} .̈ ܐ ܩܕ : ̈ ܐ ̣ ܕ 431

ܬ ܐ ܐ ܀ ܬ ܐ ̈ 432

349

̈ . ܘܨ ܘܗ ܙܕ : ܘܨ ܝܘܗ̈ ܙܕ 433

. ܐ : ̈ ܐ ܼܿ 434 ̈ ܠ ̣ ܘ ܩ̣ ܕ : ܝ̈ ܨ ܕ 435 ܿ ܟ ܬܐ ܪܕ ܬ ܀ ܝܼ ܬܐ ܪܕ ܘ 436 ̈ ̈ ̈ ̈ . ܘ ܕ : ̣̈ ܘ ܐܕ 437

. ܬܐܘ ܕ . ̈ ܪ ݀ ̣ 438

. ܘܪ ܪܕ : ܘܪ ܪܕܘ 439

. ܘܘܗ ܘ ܪ ܀ ܘܪ̣ 440 ܿ ̈ ̈ . ܬܐܘ ܘ ܐܕ :ܼ ܬܐܘ ̣ ܘ ܐܕ 441

. ̈ ܪ ܘ . ̈ ܘ 442

ܪ ܐ : ܪ ̇ ܐ 443 ̇ . ܕܘ ܕ ܀ ܕܘ ̣ ܕ 444

. ܝܘ̈ ܗ ܢܗܕܬܐ ܕ̈ :ܗ̈ ܕܬܐ ̈ ܕ 445

ܪ ܝ ܘ̈ ܗ ܢܗܕ ܘ {111r} .ܪ ܝܘܗ ܗ̈ ܕ ܘ 446

ܪ ܢܗܕܬܐ ܪ ܢܗܕܬܐ 447

. ̈ ܕ ܘ ܪ ܀ ܕ ܕܘ ܪ 448 ܿ . ̈ ܐܕ : ̈ ܝܘܗ̈ ܼ ܐܕ 449

. ̈ ܘ . ̈ ̈ ܘ 450

.̣ ܘ ܘܘ ܬܐ :̣ ܘ ܘܘ ܼܿ ܬܐ 451

. ̈ ܀ ̈ 452 ̈ ܝܘܗ ܬܕ : ܝܘܗ̈ ܬܕ 453

350

ܬܘ ܬ : ܬܘ ܬ̣ 454 ܿ ܿ ܪܕ ܘܗ ܼ : ܪܕ ܘܗ ܼ 455

. ܘ ܘܨ ܀ ̈ ܘ ܘ̇ ܨ 456 ̈ . ܬ ܬܐܕ : ̣ ܬ ̣ ܬܐܕ 457

. ̇ ܬܐܘ . ܬܐܘ 458

. ܪܕ ܘܘܗ : ܙܕ ܼܿ 459

. ̈ ܀̈ ܦܐ 460

.ܡܪܬܐ ܦܐ ܬܐܕ :ܬܐ ܦܐ ܐܕ 461

. ܘ ܐ ܗ . ܘ ̈ ܐ ܗ 462

. ܪܬܐ ܦܐ 12 ܬܐܕ : ܝ̇ ܬܐ ܦܐ ܝ̈ ܬܐܕ 463 ̈ ܀ .ܪܕܪܘ ܀ ܕܪܘ ̣ 464

̣̈ ܕ ܗ : ̣̈ ܕ ܗ 465 ̈ . ܘܘܗ ܘ . ܘܘܗ ܼܿ ܘ 466 ̈ . ̣ ̈ ̈ ܗ : ̣̈ ܗ 467

. ܪ ܀ܘܘܗ ̣ ܪ 468

. ܪ ܕ ܘ : ̇ ܪ ܕ ܘ 469 ܿ . ̣ ܪܕ . ܼ ܪ̣ ܕ 470

. ܢܪܬ ܝܗ ܕ : ܢܪܬ ܝ̣ ܗ ̣ ܕ 471 ܿ . ̣ ܕ ܀ ܼ ܕ ̣ 472

.ܢ ܘ : ̣ ܘ 473

.ܪ ܢܘ . ܢܪܬ ܦܐ ܢ 474

12 sic

351

. ܢܕ : ̇ ̇ ܢܕ 475

. ܬ ܕܕ ܀ ܬ̣ ܕ 476

ܘ : ̇ ܙ ܘ 477

. ܪܕ ܪܘ ܗ . ܪܕ ܪܘ ܗ 478

. ܘ . ̇ ̣ ̣ ܘ 479

. ܩܕ ܨ̇ ܕ ܀ ܩ̣ ܕ ܨ̇ ܕ 480

.ܘ ܐ ܕ ܕ {111V} :̣ ܐ ܕܕ ܕ 481

. ܗܪܘ ̣ ̣ ܘ 482 ̈ ܿ ܕ ܗ ܘ : ܕܼ ̈ 483

. ܐ ܀ ܢܐ ܐ 484

. ܪ ܕ ܘ : ܪ ܕ̈ ܘ 485

.ܐ ܕ ܐ ܢܐ ܐ . ܐܕ ܐ ܢܐ ܐ 486 ̈ ̈ ̈ ̈ ܕ : ̣ ܕ 487

. ܬܘܕܕ ܙ ܘ ܀ܬܘܕܕ ̈ ̈ ܘ 488

ܢ ܬܐ ܕܪ ܘ : ܢܬܐ ܝܗ̣ ݀ ̣ ܕ ܘ 489

. ̈ ܕ ܪܐ . ̈ ܕ ܐܪܘ 490

ܕ ܘܗ ܕ : ܕ ܼܿ ̣ ܕ 491 ܿ . ܀ ܼ 492 ̈ ̈ ܿ ܿ ܬܐܕ : ܼ ܼ ܬܐܕ 493

ܘܪ ܘ . ܘܪ ̣ ܘ 494

ܬ ܗ ܝ ܦܐ : ̇ ܬ ܝ ܐ 495

352

̈ . ̈ ܕ ܀ ̣ ܕ 496

.ܡܕܐ ܘܗ ܪ :ܡܕܐ ܘܗ ̣ ܪ 497

. ̣ ܘ ̣ ܘ ܬܐܘ . ̣ ܘ ̣ ܘ ܬܐܘ 498

. ܕ ܪܘ : ̣ ܕ ܘ 499

. ܢܬܐ ̣ ܀ ܢܬܐ ݀ ̣ ݀ ̣ 500

. ܬ ܗܘ : ܗ̇ ܬ ̇ ܗܘ 501 ̇ . ܘ ܘ . ̣ ܘ ̣ ܘ 502

. ܘܘܗ ܕܙܐ : ܘܘܗ ܕܙܐ 503

. ܘܗ 13܀ ܘܗ ̣ 504

. ̣ ̇ ܦܘ : ̇ ܦ̣ ܘ 505 ̈ ̈ . ܙ̈ ܘ ܀ ܙ̈ ܘ 506

. ܕ ̈ ܪ : ܕ ̈ 507

.ܕ ܐ̈ ܕ .̈ ܕܐܕ ̇ 508

. ܢܪܬ ܘ : ܢܪܬ ܘ 509 ܿ ܿ . ܐܬ ܫܬܬܕ ܀ ܼ ܐܬ 14 ܼ ܬܬܕ 510

. : ̈ ̣ 511 ̈ . ܢܘ ܬܐܘ : ܢܘ̈ ܼܿ ܬܐܘ 512

15.ܙ ܗ ̈ ܕ : ̣ ܙ ̈ ܕ 513

ܘ ܀ ݀ ̣ ܘ 514

13 Beck has for F. Given the condition of the manuscript at this location, this is an understandable mistake. However, high-resolution digital imagery clearly shows an initial instead of . 14 sic 15 sic

353

̈ ̈ ̈ ̈ . ܘ : ̣ ܘ 515

.ܢܘ .ܢܘ̈ 516

. ܘ ܪ ̣ ܘ {112r} : ܘ ܪ ݀ ̣ ܘ 517

{2r⸰b} .ܢܐ ܕ ̈ ܀ ܢܐ ̈ ܕ ̈ 518

ܢ ܗܘ :̇ ܗ ܢ 519

. ̈ ܘ ̈ ܘ ̈ . ̈ ܘ ̈ ܘ ̈ 520

̣ ܕ ܐ ܘ : ̣ ܕ ̣ ܐ ܼܿ ܘ 521

. ܪܐܘ ܘ ܀ ܪܐܘ 522

. ܘܗ ̣ ܕ ܢ : ܘܗ ܸ ܕ ܢ 523

. ܗܪܬ ܬܘܗ ܘ . ܗ̣ ܪܬ ܬ݀ ܘܗ ܘ 524 ̈ ̈ : ܝܼܿ ܘ ܬܘܬܐ 525

܀ ܪ 16ܬ ݀ ̣ ܕ 526 ܿ . ܐ ܬ :ܼ ܐ ܬ 527

. ܬ ܘܗ ̣ ܘ ܗܘ . ܬ ܘ̣ ܗܘ ̣ ܗܘ 528

. ܪܕ ܨ ܪܗ : ܪܕ ܨ ܪܗ 529 ̈ ̇ ̈ . ܘܗ ܠ ܕ ܀ܘܗ ̣ 530

. ܪ ܬ ܗ : ܪ ̣ ܗ ܬ 531 ܿ ̈ ܿ .ܗ ܐܘ .ܼ ܐ ܗ ܼ ܘ 532 ̇ . ܐ ܕ ܪܗ : ̣ ܐ ܕ ܪܗ 533 ̈ ̈ . ܬ ̈ ܐܘ ܀ ܬ ̈ ̣ ܐܘ 534

16 Ignore diacritics and read as an imperfect, third, masculine, singular from √bht. The scribe seems to have incorrectly scanned this verb as a perfect, third, feminine, singular from √nbh.

354

. ܬܐ ܕܘܐ ܬ : ̈ ܬܐ ܕܘܐ ܬ 535

. ܪܐ ܕ . ܪܐ ݀ ̇ ܘ 536

. ̈ ܪܗܘ : ̈ ܪܗܘ 537

. ܢܘ ܪܐ ܕ ܀ ܢܘ ܪܐ ݀ ̣ ܕ 538

.ܬ ܘܗ ̣ ܬ :ܬܘܗ ܬ݀ ̣ ܪ ܬ 539

. ܕ ̣ ܘ . ܕ ݀ ̣ ܐܘ 540

. ܗܬ ܪܗ :ܗܬ ܪܗܘ 541 ̈ ̇ . ̈ ܀ ̣ 542

. ܬܘܗ ̣ ܬ ܬ : ܬܘܗ ݀ ̣ ܬ̣ ܬ 543

. ̈ ܕ ܘܕ . ̈ ܕ ܘ 544

. ܕ ̈ ܪܗ : ܕ ̈ ܪܗ 545 ܿ . ܘ ܘܬܬܐܕ ܀ ̣ ܸ ܘ ܘܬܼ ܬܐܕ 546

. ܪ ܬ ܬ : ܪ ܬ ܬ 547

. ̣ ̇ ܕ . ̇ ܕ 548 ܿ . ܘ ܪܗ : ܼ ܘ ܼܿ ܪܗ 549

. ܘܗ ܢܐܙ ܕ ܀ ܘܗ ܢ̇ ܐܙ ܕ 550 ̈ ̇ ̈ .ܚ ̣ ܕ ܕ ܠ :ܚܕ ܕ ܬ 551

. ܐܘ {112v} . ̇ ܕ 552 ̈ . ܐܬܐ ܪܗ : ̣ ܐܬܐ ̈ ܪܗ 553

. ̈ ܕ ܕܗ̈ ܀ ̈ ܕ ܕܗ̈ 554

. ܪܘ ܕ ܒ ܘܬ ܬ : ܪܘ ܕ ܕ ܬ 555

355

. ܬ ̈ ܐܕ : ̇ ܬ ̈ ܐܕ 556

ܘ ܕ ܪܗ . ܘ ܕ ܪܗ 557 ̇ ̇ . ܬܕ ܒܕ ܀ ̣ ܬܕ ܒܕ 558

. ܬ : ܬ 559 ܿ . ܘܗ ܪܐܕ ܕ . ܘܗ ܼ ܪܐܕ ̇ ܕ 560

. ܕ ܪܗ : ̣ ̣ ܕ ܪܗ 561

̈ ܕ ܚ̇ ̈ ܕ ܀ ̈ ܕ ̈ ܚ̇ ܕ 562

. ܐ ̣ ܬ : ̣ ܐܕ ̣ ܬ 563

.ܪ ̈ ܬ .ܪ ̈ ܬ 564

. ܘܗ ܪܐ ܪܗ ܪܗ : ܘܗ ܪ̣ ܐܕ ܪܗ ܪܗ 565

17...ܠ ܬ ܀ ܠ ̈ ܬ 566

: ܼܿ ܬܐܕ ܬ 567

. ܪ ܘ 568

: ܪܕ ܪܗ 569

܀ ܕ ܬ 570 ̈ : ܸ ܕ ܠ 571

. ܘ̈ ܬ ܪܗ 572

:ܪ ̣ ܕ 573

܀ ܘ 574

: ̣ 575

17 The following 24 lines are in W, but not F. The three point punctuation found in F seems to indicate that the scribe was aware of a longer reading.

356

.ܼܿ ܪ ܪܐ ܘ 576

: ܘܗ ̇ ܢܐܕ 577

܀ ܘܗ ܬ̇ ܠ̇ ܪܐ 578

: ܘܗ ̇ ܢܐܘ 579

. ̇ ܦ̇ ܪܐ 580

:ܗ ܬ݀ ܘܗ ܡ ܘ 581

܀̇ ܪ ܪܐ ܕ 582

: ̇ ܝܗ ܪ ܕ ܕ 583

. ܢ ܦܐ ܢܬܘܬ 584

: ܝܕܘܐ ̣ ܕ 585 ܿ ܀ ܘܪ ܬܼ 586 ̇ {113r} : ܬܪ ܢܐܕ 587

. ܪܗܘ ̣ 588

: ̇ ܗ̇ ̇ ܢܐܘ 589 ܿ ܀ܼ ܕ ܘܪ 590

. ܩܘ ܕ : ܩܘ̇ ܕ 591

. ̈ ܐ ܐܕ . ̈ ̣ ܐ ܐܕ 592

. ܬ ̣ ܬ ܐܘ : ܬ ݀ ̣ ܬ ܐܘ 593

. ܕ ܢܘ ܀ ܙ̈ ܢܘ 594

. ܐ ܐ ܐܘ : ̣ ܐ ܐܘ 595

. ̈ ܕ . ̈ ܕ 596

357

. ܬ ܘ : ܬ ̇ ܘ 597

. ̈ ܀ ̇ ̈ 598

. ̣ : ̣ 599

. ܙ ܘܘ . ̣ ܙ ܘܘ 600

.ܢܗ ܘܘܗ ܘ :ܢ̣ ܗ ܘܘܗ ܘ 601

. ܬܐ ܕܘ ܀ ܬܐ ̣ ܕܘ 602

. ܕ ܕ : ܕ ܕ 603 ̇ . ܢ ܗ . ܢ ܗ 604

ܡ ܡܕ ܬ : ܡ ܡܕ ܬ 605

. ܕ ܝ ܗ̣ ܬܘ ܀ ̇ ܗܕ ܝܗ ܬܘ 606

: ܕ ̇ 607

. ܪ ̇ ܘ 608

. ܙ̈ ܝܗ : ܙ̈ ܘܘܗ ̣ 609

. ܪ ܢܐ ܐܕ ܀ܪ ܢܐ ̣ ܐܕ 610

. ܝ ܪܐ ܕ ܗ :̣ ܪܐ ܕ ܗ 611

. ̈ ܬ ܕ . ̣ ̈ ܬ ܕ 612

. ̈ ̣ ܕ : ̈ ܕ 613 ̇ . ܢ ܘ ܕ ܘܗ ̣ ܀ ܢܘ ܕ ܘܗ ̣ 614 ̇ . ܪ ܕ ܝܗ : ܪܕ ܝܗ̣ 615

. ܗܬ ̈ ܨܕ ܘ : ܗܬܨ̈ ܕ ܘ 616 ܿ . ܠܙܬܐܕ ܪ ܘ : ܠܙܼ ܬܐܕ ܪ ̇ ܕ 617

358

ܬܐ ܀ܼܿ ܬܐ ̣ 618

. ܬܘ̈ ̣ ܕ ܪܬܐ : ܬܘ̈ ܸ ܕ ܪܬܐ 619 ̇ . ܕ ܥ ̣ . ܕ ̣ ̣ 620

ܘ ܝ {113v} :ܗ̣ ܘ ܝ̣ 621

. ܘ ܀ ܦܐ ܘ 622

. ܝܕܘܐܕ ̈ ܘ : ܝܕܘܐܕ ̈ ܕ 623

. ܬ ܪ . ܬ ̣ ܪ 624

: ܒ̣ ܕ ܘ 625

܀ ܝܗ̈ ܕܗ ̇ ܕ 626

: ܕ ̣ 627

. ܕ̈ ̇ 628

ܢܐ ̣ ܐܘ ̣ 629

܀ܛܗܕ ܝܗ̣ ܕ 630 ̇ :ܢܐ ̣ 631

. ̈ ܘ ̈ 632 ̇ : ܥ ܬܐ 633

܀ ̣ ܕ 634

: ̇ ܪܕ 635

. ̇ ܪ ܘ 636 ܿ ̇ . ܘܗ ܬܐ : ܘܗ ܼ ܬܐ 637

. ܀ 638

359

ܿ . ܐ ܘ ܕ : ̣ ܼ ̣ ܕ 639

. ܗ ̇ ̣ ܘ . ݀ ̣ 640

. ܘ ܝܬܐܕ : ̣ ܘ ܝܼܿ ܬܐܕ 641

. ܀ ܢܘܗ 642

: ̇ ݀ ̣ ܘ 643

. ݀ ̣ ܙܕ ݀ ܘ 644

. ܢ : ܢ ̈ 645

. ܕ ܘ ܀ ̇ ̇ ܐ ܘ 646

ܙ ܝ : ܙ ܝ 647

. . ̇ 648

. ܬ ̣ ܘ : ܬ ̣ ܘ 649

. ܬܐ ܬܙܘ ܀ ܬܙ ݀ ܼܿ ܬܐܘ 650

ܙ̈ ܕ : ܙܕ ̇ 651 ܿ . ܢ ܕ ܘ . ܢ ܼ ܐ ܘ 652

. ܐ ܕ : ܗ ̇ ܕ 653

. ܕ {114r} ܀̇ ܕ 654

. ܗܐ ܘ

. ܕ ܘ

ܐ ܝܗܘ ̈ ܘܗ ܩ̣ : ܐ ܝܗܘ̈ ܘܗ ܩ̣ 655 ̇ ܿ ܿ . ܘ . ܼ ܼ ܘ 656

{2r⸰c} . ܐܪ[ܡ] ܕ : ܐ ݀ ܕ 657

360

ܿ ܿ . ܐܕ [ ] ܀ ܼ ܐܕ ܼ 658

.ܐ []ܡ ܕ : ̣ ܕ 659

. ܩܘ . ܩ̇ ܘ 660

ܚܘ : ܚ̣ ܘ 661 ܿ ܿ ܕ ܘ ܀ ܕ ܼ ܼ ܘ 662 ܿ ܘܗ ܐ ܪ [ ]ܡܕܘ :ܼ ܪ ܕܕ 663

. ܕ ܕ ܝܐܕ ܐ . ܕ ܕ ̇ ܕ ܐ 664

[ ]ܫ ܘܗ ܬ ܘ : ܪ ܘܗ ܬ ܘ 665 ̇ . ܓܘ [ܡ ] ܀ 18ܼܿ ܘ 666 ܿ .ܗܨ ܬܐ ܘ :ܗܨ ܼ ܬܐ 667

. ܘ ܪ . ܢ̇ ܘ ܪܕ 668

. ܬܐ ܬ ܘ :ܬ ܼܿ ܬܐ ܘ 669

. ܬܘ ܘܗ ܀ ܘ ̇ ܕ 670

: ܘܨ ܘܗ ̣ 671

. ̇ 672

ܘܗ ̣ ܕ ܘ : ܘܗ ̣ ܕ ܘ 673

. ܝܗ ܗܬ ܪ̇ ܀ܝܗ ܬ ܪ̇ 674

:ܗܬܪ ܘܗ ܥ̣ ܙ 675

. ̈ ̇ 676 ܿ :ܗܬܼ ܘܗ ̣ ܪ ܘ 677 ̈ ܀̣ ܕ ܝܗܕ ܕ 678

18 sic. Read with F.

361

. ܕ ܬܪ ܘ : ̇ ܕ ܬܪ 679 ̈ . ̈ ܕ . ̣ ܕ 680 ̈ ̈ . ܘܐܕ : ܘܐܕ ̣ ܘ 681

. ܕ ܀ ̣ ܕ 682 ̇ . ܘ ̣ : ܘ ̣ 683

ܗ ̈ ܕ ܘ . ܗܐܕ ̣ ܘ 684

: ܘܗ ̣ 685

܀ ܗ̈ ܕ ܙ ̣ ܘ 686

ܘܗ ܕ {114v} : ̣ ܘܗ ̣ ܕ 687

.ܒܘ ܕ .[ ]ܘ ܐܕ 688

: ܗܬܘ ܘܗ ܗ̇ 689

܀ܗܬ ܘܗ ܗ̇ ̣ ܬܘ 690

. ܚܐܕ ܘ : ܼܿ ܚ̣ ܐܕ ܘ 691

. ܬ ܬܪܨܕ . ܬ ܬ݀ ܪܨܕ ܨ 692

. ܨ ̣ ܘ ܬܐ : ܨ ̣ ܘ ܼܿ ܬܐ 693

. ܀ ݀ ̣ ݀ 694 ܿ . ̣ ܘܗ ܒܪ ܕ : ܪ ܼ ܕ 695

. ܢ ܗܕ . ܢ ܗܕ 696 ̈ . ܐ ܝ ܕ : ̣ ܐ ܝ ܕ 697

. ܘ ܐ ܝܘ ܀ ܢܐ ܐ ܝܘ 698

. ܪܐܘ ܘ : ܪܐܘ ̇ ̣ ܕ 699

362

. ̈ ܦܐ ܘ . ̈ ܦܐ [ ] 700

. ܢܘ̈ ܕ ܬܕ ܘ : ܢܘ̈ ܕ ̇ ܬܕ ܘ 701

̈ ̈ ܀ ̈ ܘ ̈ 702 ̇ : ̣ ܕ ܩܕ ܒܘܬ ܘ 703

. ܘܕ 704 ̈ ̈ ܕ ܘ : ܕ ܘ 705

̈ ܘ ܀ ܨܐ̈ 706

ܐ ܕܕ : ̇ ܕܕ 707

.ܪ ܗܐ ܡܕܕ .ܪܼܿ ܗܐ ܡܕܕ 708

ܕܪܘ ܐ ܘ :ܪܬܘ ܐ ̇ ܘ 709

. ܕܕ ܀ ܕܕ 710 ܿ . ܙ ܪ : ܙܼ ̣ ܪܕ 711

. ܕ . ܕ 712

: ܐ ̇ ܘ 713

܀ ܕ ܗܐ 714

. ܪ ܘ : ܪ ܸ ܘ 715

. ̈ ܕ ܘܗ̇ . ̈ ̣ ܕ ܘܗ̇ 716

. ܐ ܘ ܐ ̇ ܘ 717

. ̈ ̈ ܕ ܀ ̈ ̇ ̈ ܕ 718

: ܕ ̈ {115r} 19:[ܕ] ̈ ̇ 719

. ܬ . ܬ ܼܿ 720

19 The base text is effaced. Reading supplied from marginalia in what appears to be another hand.

363

. ܪ ܕܗ : ܪ ܕܗ 721

.ܗ ܬܘܐܕ ܀ܗܬܘܐܕ 722

. ܘܗܐ ܕ : ܘܗ̇ ܐ ܕ 723

. ̈ ܕ ̇ ܬܐ ܢܘ 724

: ܘܗܐ ̇ ܪܘ 725

. ̈ ܘ ܀̈ ܘ 726

. ܨ ܪܐܕ : ܨ̈ ܪܐ 727

. ܢܘܕܐܕ ܘܐ . ܘܕܪ ܢܘܕܐ̇ ܘ̇ ܐ 728

: ̣ 729

. ܬ ܗ ܕܘ ܀ ̣ ܬ ܗ ܕܘ 730

.ܪ ܕ ܐ : ܪܼܿ ܕ ܝܐ 731

.ܪ ܬ ܘܪܘ . ܪܐ ̣ ܬ ܘܪܘ 732

̈ ܗ : [ ̈ ] ܗ 733

. ܕ ̇ ܀ ܕ ̇ 734

. ܘ ܢܐ ܘܕ : ̣ ܘ ܢܐ 20[ ܐܕ] 735 ܿ . ܬܘ ܬܘ . ܬܼ ܘ ܬܘ 736

:ܪܬܐ ܦܐ ܐܕܘ 737

܀ ܕܪܘ ̣ 738

. ܕܕ ܘ : ̇ ܕܕ 739

ܝܘܪܕ . ݀ ̣ ܘܪܕ 740

741 ܕ ̣ـ ܬܪ ܕ ܐ: ܘ ܬܪ ܕ ܐ.

20 W’s base text is effaced. Reading supplied from marginalia in what appears to be the same hand.

364

. ܬ ܘ ܀ ܬ ̣ ܘ 742 ̈ ̈ :ܕ ̣ 743

. ܬܨܘ ܘܨ̇ ̣ ܪܘ 744 ̈ : ܪ ̈ ܘܗ ̣ 745 ̈ ܀ ̈ 21[ܡ]ܚ̣ ܪܘ 746

. ܕ ̈ ܬ ̣ : ܕ ̣ ܬ ̣ 747

. ܘ . ̇ ܘ 748 ̈ ̈ ̈ ܪ ̣ : ̣ 749

ܘܗ ܘ ܀ ̈ ܕ ̈ ܝܬܬܐܘ 750

: ̣ 751

. ܘܗ ̇ ̣ ܘ 752

. ̈ : ̈ ̣ 753 ̈ ̈ . ܕ ̣ ܪܘ ܀ ܕ ̣ ܪܘ 754 ̈ ̈ ̇ . : ܼܿ ̣ 755 ̈ ̇ ̈ ݀ . ܘܗ ܠ ܘ {115v} .ܘܗ ̣ ܘ 756 ̈ ̈ ̈ . ܕ : ܕ ܬ ̣ 757

. ܘܗ ܪ ܕ ܘ ܀ ܘܗ ܪܼܿ ܕ ̣ ܘ 758

: ̈ ܕ ̣ 759

.ܘܗ ̇ ܬ̈ ܘ 760

. ̣ ܪ : ̣ ܪ 761

. ܘܗ ܪ ܀ ܘܗ ܪ 762

21 W has hole here. Reading with Beck.

365

. ܬܪ ܝܗ ܦܐܘ : ݀ ̣ ܝܗ̇ ܦܐ 763

ܪܕ . ̇ ܪܕ 764

ܗܘ : ܗ̣ ܘ 765

. ܗܬܐ ̈ ܘ ܀ ܗܐ ̈ ܘ 766

. ܕܘ : ̣ ܕܘ 767

. ܦܐ ̣ . ܗܐ ܦܐ ̣ 768

.ܕ ܕܘ ܗܬ : ܗܬܘ ܗܬ 769

܀ ܝܗܕ ܝܗ̣ ܕ ܘ̣ 770

366

Selected Bibliography

Primary Sources

Beck, Edmund. Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Carmina Nisibena. CSCO 218-19. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO (Peeters), 1961.

———. Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Carmina Nisibena (Zweiter Teil). CSCO 240-41. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO (Peeters), 1963.

———. Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen auf Abraham Kidunaya und Julianos Saba. CSCO 322-23. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO (Peeters), 1972.

———. Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen contra Haereses. CSCO 169-170. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO (Peeters), 1957.

———. Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Ecclesia. CSCO 198-99. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO (Peeters), 1960.

———. Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Ieiunio. CSCO 246-47. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO (Peeters), 1964.

———. Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Nativitate (Epiphania). CSCO 186-87. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO (Peeters), 1959.

———. Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Paradiso und Contra Julianum. CSCO 174-75. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO (Peeters), 1957.

———. Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de Virginitate. CSCO 223-24. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO (Peeters), 1962.

———. Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Paschahymnen (De Azymis, De Crucifixione, De Resurrectione). CSCO 248-49. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO (Peeters), 1964.

———. Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermones I. CSCO 305-306. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO (Peeters), 1970.

———. Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermones II. CSCO 311-12. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO (Peeters), 1970.

———. Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermones III. CSCO 320-21. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO (Peeters), 1972.

———. Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermones IV. CSCO 334-35. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO (Peeters), 1973.

367

———. Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermones de Fide. CSCO 212-13. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO (Peeters), 1961.

———. Ephrem Syrus. Sermones in Hebdomadam Sanctam. CSCO 412-13. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO (Peeters), 1979.

———. Nachträge zu Ephraem Syrus. CSCO 363-64. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO (Peeters), 1975.

Bedjan, Paulus. Homiliae S. Isaaci Syri Antiocheni. Vol. 1. Paris: Harrassowitz, 1905.

Bevan, E.A. and F.C. Burkitt. S. Ephraim’s Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan. Vol 2. London: Williams and Norgate, 1921.

Brière, M. and F. Graffin. Sancti Philoxeni episcopi Mabbugensis Dissertationes decem de Uno e Sancta Trinitate incorporato et passo: V. Appendices: I. Tractatus; II. Refutatio; III. Epistula dogmatica; IV. Florilegium. Patrologia Orientalis 41.1. Turnhout: Brepols, 1982.

Brock, Sebastian P. “Ephrem’s Letter to Publius.” LM 89 (1976): 261-305.

Gismondi, H. Ebed-Iesu Sobensis Carmina Selecta ex Libro Paradisus Eden. Beirut: Typographia PP. Soc. Iesu, 1888. de Halleux, André. Philoxène de Mabbog: Lettre aux Moines de Senoun. CSCO 231-232. Louvain: Peeters, 1963.

Lamy, T.J. Sancti Ephraem Syri Hymni et Sermones: Quos e Codicibus Londinensibus, Parisiensibus et Oxoniensibus Descriptos Edidit, Latinitate Donavit, Variis Lectionibus Instruxit, Notis et Prolegomenis Illustravit. Vol. 1-4. Mechliniae: H. Dessain, 1882, 1886, 1889, 1902.

Mingana, Alphonsi D. Narsai Doctoris Syri Homiliae et Carmina. 2 vol. Mosul: Typis Fratrum Praedicatorum, 1912.

Parisot, Joannes. Aphraatis Sapientis Persae Demonstrationes. 2 vol. Patrologia Syriaca 1.1-2. Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1894 and 1907.

Raḥmani, I.E. Lūqātē da-mkannšīn men sāyōmē ʿattīqē. Vol 1-5. Sharfe, no further publication details.

Watt, J.W. The Fifth Book of the Rhetoric of Antony of Tagrit. CSCO 481-82. Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO (Peeters), 1986.

368

Lexica and Grammars

The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon. All citations accessed and confirmed on February 25, 2020. http://cal.huc.edu.

Kiraz, George Anton. Syriac Orthography. Piscataway, New Jersey: Gorgias Press, 2012.

Nöldeke, Theodor. Compendious Syriac Grammar. Trans. James A. Crichton. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 2003.

Smith, J. Payne, ed. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary: Founded upon the Thesaurus Syriacus of R. Payne Smith. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 1999.

Sokoloff, Michael. A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns and Piscataway, New Jersey: Gorgias Press, 2009.

Secondary Sources

Amar, Joseph P. “Byzantine Ascetic Monachism and Greek Bias in the Vita Tradition of Ephrem the Syrian.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 58 (1992): 123-56.

———. “Christianity at the Crossroads: The Legacy of Ephrem the Syrian.” Religion and Literature 43:2 (2011): 1-21.

———. A Metrical Homily on Holy Mar Ephrem by Mar Jacob of Serug: Critical Edition of the Syriac Text, Translation and Introduction. PO 47:1. Turnhout: Brepols, 1975.

———. “The Syriac ‘Vita’ Tradition of Ephrem the Syrian.” Ph.D. diss., Catholic University of America, 1988.

Anatolios, Khaled. Retrieving Nicaea: The Development and Meaning of Trinitarian Doctrine. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2011.

Armstrong, Gregory T. “Imperial Church Building and Church-State Relations.” Church History 36 (1967), 3-17.

Attridge, Derek. “Beyond Metrics: Richard Cureton’s Rhythmic Phrasing in English Verse.” Poetics Today 17:1 (1996): 9-27.

———. Moving Words: Forms of English Poetry. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2013.

———. “A Note on Richard Cureton’s Response.” Poetics Today 17:1 (1996): 51-54.

———. Poetic Rhythm: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995.

369

Beck, Edmund. Ephraems über den Glauben: Ihr theologischer Lehrgehalt und ihr geschichtlicher Rahmen. Studia Anselmiana 33. Rome: Pontificium Institutum S. Anselmi, 1953.

———. “Zur Terminologie von Ephräm’s Bildtheologie.” In Typus, Symbol, Allegorie, bei den östlichen Vätern und ihren Parallelen im Mittelalter, ed. M. Schmidt and C.F. Geyer, 329-377. Regensburg: Pustet, 1982.

Bergeson, Tonya R. and Sandra E. Trehub. “Infants’ Perception of Rhythmic Patterns.” Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal 23.4 (2006): 345-360. den Biesen, Kees. Annotated Bibliography of Ephrem the Syrian, student ed. Self published, 2011.

———. Simple and Bold: Ephrem’s Art of Symbolic Thought. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2006.

Blockley, R.C. “Ammianus Marcellinus on the Persian Invasion of AD 359.” Phoenix 42:3 (1988): 244-260.

———. “The Romano-Persian Peace Treaties of A.D. 299 and 363.” Florilegium 6 (1984): 28- 49.

Botha, Phil J. “An Analysis of Ephrem the Syrian’s views on the Temptation of Christ as Exemplified in His Hymn De Virginitate XII.” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 14 (2003): 39-57.

———. “Antithesis and Argument in the Hymns of Ephrem the Syrian.” HTS Theological Studies 44.3 (1988): 581-595.

———. “Contrast and Contrivance in Ephrem the Syrian’s Hymn De Virginitate XLIV.” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 12 (2001): 30-40.

———. “Ephrem’s Comparison of the Father/Son Relationship to the Relationship between a Tree and its Fruit in his Hymns on Faith” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 4 (1993), 23-32.

———. “Ephrem the Syrian’s Hymn On the Crucifixion 4.” HTS Theological Studies 71.3, 1-8.

———. “‘God in a Garment of Words’: The Metaphor of Metaphoric Language in Ephrem the Syrian’s Hymn ‘On Faith’ XXXI.” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 3 (1992): 63-79.

———. “Honour and Shame as Pivotal Values in Ephrem the Syrian’s Vision of Paradise.” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 10 (1999): 49-65.

370

———. “The Paradox between Appearance and Truth in Ephrem the Syrian’s Hymn De Crucifixione IV.” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 13 (2002): 34-49.

———. “The Poet as Preacher: St. Ephrem the Syrian’s Hymn De Virginitate XXXI as a Coherent, Asthetic, and Persuasive Poetic Discourse.” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 19 (2008): 44-72.

———. “The Poetic Face of Rhetoric: Ephrem’s Polemics against the Jews and Heretics in Contra Haereses XXV.” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 2 (1991): 16-36.

———. “Polarity: The Theology of Anti-Judaism in Ephrem the Syrian’s Hymns on Easter.” HTS Theological Studies 46.1-2 (1990): 36-45.

———. “The Structure and Function of Paradox in the Hymns of Ephrem the Syrian.” Ekklesiastikos Pharos 68 (1990-91): 50-62.

———. “Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Mary—The Bold Women in Ephrem the Syrian’s Hymn De Nativitate 9.” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 17 (2006): 1-21.

———. “The Textual Strategy of Ephrem the Syrian’s Hymn Contra Haereses I.” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 15 (2004): 57-75.

———. “Textual Strategy in a Fourth-Century Syriac Hymn on the Life of the Ascetic Abraham of Kidun.” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 8 (1997): 42-52.

Bou Mansour, Tanios. La pensée symbolique de saint Éphrem. Kaslik/Liban: Bibliothèque de l’Université Saint-Esprit, 1988.

Brock, Sebastian P. The Luminous Eye: The Spiritual World Vision of Saint Ephrem the Syrian. revised ed. Cistercian Studies 124. Kalamazoo, Michigan: Cistercian Publications, 1992.

———. Hymns on Paradise: St. Ephrem the Syrian. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

———. “Saints in Syriac: A Little-Tapped Resource.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 16, no. 2 (2008): 181-96.

———. “The Transmission of Ephrem’s madrashe in the Syriac Liturgical Tradition.” Studia Patristica 33 (1997): 490-505.

Brock, Sebastian P. and George A. Kiraz. Ephrem the Syrian: Select Poems Vocalized Syriac Text with English Translation, Introduction, and Notes. Provo, UT: BYU Press, 2006.

Brock, Sebastian P. and Lucas van Rompay. Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts and Fragments in the Library of Deir al-Surian, Wadi al-Natrun (Egypt). Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 227. Leuven: Peeters, 2014.

371

Brown, Peter. “The Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity.” The Journal of Roman Studies 61 (1971): 80-101.

———. The World of Late Antiquity: AD 150-750. New York, London: W.W. Norton & Co.

Bundy, David. “Bishop Vologese and the Persian Siege of Nisibis in 359 C.E.: A Study in Ephrem’s Mēmrē on Nicomedia.” Encounter 63.1-2 (2002): 55-63.

Burgess, R.W. “The Dates of the First Siege of Nisibis and the Death of James of Nisibis,” Byzantion 69:1 (1999), 7-17.

Burkitt, F. Crawford. Early Eastern Christianity; St. Margaret’s Lectures on the Syriac-Speaking Church. London: John Murray, 1904.

———. S. Ephraim’s Quotations from the Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1901.

Cameron, Averil. “The Reign of Constantine, AD 306-337.” In The Cambridge Ancient History: The Crisis of Empire AD 193-337, vol. XII, 2nd ed., eds. Alan K. Bowman, Peter Garnsey, and Averil Cameron, 90-109. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005.

Cohen, Joseph. Voices of Israel: Essays on and Interviews with Yehuda Amichai, A.B. Yehoshua, T. Carmi, Aharon Applefeld, and Amos Oz. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990.

Csokits, János. “János Pilinsky’s ‘Desert of Love’: A Note.” In Translating Poetry: The Double Labyrinth, ed. Daniel Weissbort, 9-15. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1989.

Cureton, Richard D. “A Response to Derek Attridge.” Poetics Today 17:1 (1996): 30-50.

———. Rhythmic Phrasing in English Verse. Essex: Longman Group, 1992.

Dingas, Beate and Engelbert Winter. Rome and Persia in Late Antiquity: Neighbours and Rivals. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2007.

Dodgeon, Michael H. and Samuel N.C. Lieu. The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars (AD 226-363): A Documentary History. London, New York: Routledge, 1994.

Felstiner, John. “Kafka and the Golem: Translating Paul Celan.” In Translating Poetry: The Double Labyrinth, ed. Daniel Weissbort, 35-50. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1989.

Fiey, Jean-Maurice. Nisibe: metropole syriaque orientale et ses suffragants des origines à nos jours. Louvain: CSCO, 1977.

Frend, W.H.C. The Rise of Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.

372

Griffin, Carl W. “Cyrillona: A Critical Study and Commentary.” Ph.D. diss., CUA, 2011.

Griffith, Sidney H. “Asceticism in the Church of Syria: The Hermeneutics of Early Syrian Monasticism.” In Asceticism, eds. Vincent Wimbush and Richard Valantasis, 220-245. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

———, “Christianity in Edessa and the Syriac-Speaking World: Mani, Bar Daysan, and Ephraem: The Struggle for Allegiance on the Aramean Frontier.” Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 2 (2002), 5-20.

———. “Ephraem, the Deacon of Edessa, and the Church of the Empire.” In Diakonia: Studies in Honor of Robert T. Meyer, edited by Thomas Halton Williman and Joseph P. Amar, 22-52. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1986.

———. “Ephraem the Syrian’s Hymns ‘Against Julian’: Meditations on History and Imperial Power.” Vigiliae Christianae 41.3 (1987): 238-266.

———. Faith Adoring the Mystery: Reading the Bible with St. Ephraem the Syrian. The Père Marquette Lecture in Theology, 1997. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1997.

———. “Images of Ephrem: the Syrian Holy Man and His Church.” Traditio 45 (1989-90): 7- 33.

———. “Julian Saba, ‘Father of the Monks’ of Syria.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 2, no. 2 (1994): 185 - 216.

———. “The Poetics of Scriptural Reasoning: Syriac Mēmrē at Work.” Studia Patristica 78 (2017): 5-24.

———. “St. Ephraem, Bar Dayṣān and the Clash of Madrashē in Aram: Readings in St. Ephreaem’s Hymni contra Haereses.” The Harp 21 (2006): 447-472.

———. “Setting Right the Church of Syria: Saint Ephraem’s Hymns against Heresies.” In The Limits of Ancient Christianity: Essays on Late Antique Thought and Culture in Honor of R.A. Markus, eds. William E. Klingshirn and Mark Vessey, 97-114. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

———. “‘The Thorn among the Tares’: Mani and Manichaeism in the Works of St. Ephraem the Syrian.” Studia Patristica 35: 395-427. de Halleux, André. “Saint Éphrem le Syrien.” Revue théologique de Louvain 14:3 (1983): 328- 355.

Hartung, Blake. “The Authorship and Dating of the Syriac Corpus Attributed to Ephrem of Nisibis: A Reassessment.” Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 22.2 (2018): 296-321.

373

Harvey, Susan Ashbrook. “Revisiting the Daughters of the Covenant: Women’s Choirs and Sacred Song in Ancient Syriac Christianity.” Hugoye 8, no. 2 (2005): 125-149. http://www.bethmardutho.org/index.php/hugoye/volume-index/166.html.

———. Song and Memory: Biblical Women in Syriac Tradition. The Père Marquette Lecture in Theology, 2010. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2010.

Hayes, Andrew. “The Rhetoric and Themes of the Madrāšā Cycle in Praise of Abraham Qīdunāyā Attributed to Ephrem the Syrian.” Ph.D. diss., CUA, 2012.

Hoyland, Robert G. In God’s Path: The Arab Conquests and the Creation of an Islamic Empire. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2015.

Hunt, David. “Julian.” In The Cambridge Ancient History: The Later Empire AD 337-425, vol. XIII, eds. Averil Cameron and Peter Garnsey, 44-77. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998.

———. “The Successors of Constantine.” In The Cambridge Ancient History: The Later Empire AD 337-425, vol. XIII, eds. Averil Cameron and Peter Garnsey, 1-43. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998.

Johnson, Samuel. The Lives of the Most Eminent English Poet: with Critical Observations on their Works. 4 Vol. London: Printed for T. Longman, et al., 1781.

Kennedy, David and Derrick Riley. Rome’s Desert Frontier: From the Air. London: Batsford Limited, 1990.

Kesser-Kayaalp, Elif and Nihat Erdoǧan. “The Cathedral Complex at Nisibis.” Anatolian Studies 63 (2013): 137-154.

Koltun-Fromm, Naomi. Hermeneutics of Holiness: Ancient Jewish and Christian Notions of Sexuality and Religious Community. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2010.

Krumhansl, Carol L. and Peter W. Jusczyk. “Infants’ Perception of Phrase Structure in Music.” Psychological Science 1.1 (1990): 70-73.

Lenski, Noel. Constantine and the Cities: Imperial Authority and Civic Politics. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania Press, 2016.

Lightfoot, C.S. “Facts and Fiction: The Third Siege of Nisibis (AD 350).” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 37:1 (1988): 105-125.

Macomber, William. “The Manuscripts of the Metrical Homilies of Narsai.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 39 (1973): 275-306.

374

Mathews, Edward G. Jr. “The Works Attributed to Isaac of Antioch: A[nother] Preliminary Checklist.” Hugoye 6.1 (2009): 51-76. https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/article/HV6N1Mathews

Mathews, Edward G. Jr. and Joseph P. Amar. St. Ephrem the Syrian: Selected Prose Works. Washington D.C.: CUA Press, 1994.

Matthews, John. The Roman Empire of Ammianus: With a New Introduction. revised ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Classical Press, 2007.

McVey, Kathleen. “Were the Earliest Madrāšê Songs or Recitations?” in After Bardaisan: Studies on Continuity and Change in Syriac Christianity in Honour of Professor Han J.W. Drijvers, ed. G.J.Reinink and A.C. Klugkist, 185-199. Louvain: Orientalia Lovaniensa Analecta, 1999.

Melki, Joseph. “Saint Éphrem le Syrien, un bilan de l’édition critique” Parole de l’Orient 11 (1983) 3-88

Millar, Fergus. The Roman Near East: 21BC – AD 337. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1993.

Milton, John. The Complete English Poems. Edited and introduced by Gordon Campbell. New York: Everyman’s Library, 1992.

Morris, J.B. Rhythms of Saint Ephrem: Select Works of S. Ephrem the Syrian Translated out of the Original Syriac with Notes and Indices. Oxford: J.H Parker, 1847.

Murray, Robert. Symbols of Church and Kingdom: A Study in Early Syriac Tradition. Revised ed. Piscataway, New Jersey: Gorgias Press, 2004.

———. “The Theory of Symbolism in St. Ephrem’s Theology.” Parole de l'Orient 6/7 (1975): 1-20.

Nedungatt, George. “The Covenanters of the Early Syriac-Speaking Church.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 39 (1973): 191-215, 419-444.

Ong, Walter J. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London & New York: Routledge, 1982.

Prestige, G.L. God in Patristic Thought. London: SPCK, 1964.

Renoux, Charles. Éphrem de Nisibe Mēmrē sur Nicomédie: Édition des Fragments de l’Original Syriaque et de la Version Arménienne, Traduction Française, Introduction et Notes. PO 37:2,3. Turnhout: Brepols, 1975.

Ridley, R.T. “Notes on Julian’s Persian Expedition (363).” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 22.2 (1973): 317-330.

375

Rodrigues Pereira, A.S. Studies in Aramaic Poetry: Selected Jewish, Christian and Samaritan Poems. Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1997.

Ross, Alan J. “Constantius and the Sieges of Amida and Nisibis: Ammianus’ Relationship with Julian’s Panegyrics.” Acta Classica 57 (2014): 127-154.

Ross, Steven K. Roman Edessa: Politics and Culture on the Eastern Fringes of the Roman Empire, 114-242 C.E. Routledge Classical Monographs. London: Routledge, 2000.

Russell, Paul S. “Nisibis as the Background to the Life of Ephrem the Syrian.” Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 8:2 (2005): 179-235. https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/article/hv8n2russell.

Seager, Robin. “Perceptions of Eastern Frontier Policy in Ammianus, Libanius, and Julian (337- 363).” The Classical Quarterly 47:1 (1997): 253-268.

Smith, Barbara Herrnstein. Poetic Closure: A Study of How Poems End. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968.

Suh, Wonmo. “From the Syriac Ephrem to the Greek Ephrem: A Case Study of the Influence of Ephrem’s Isosyllabic Sermons (Memre) on Greek-Speaking Christianity.” Ph.D. diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 2000.

Treadgold, Warren. A Concise History of Byzantium. New York: Palgrave, 2001.

Vööbus, Arthur. Syriac and Arabic Documents Regarding Legislation Relative to Syrian Asceticism: Edited, Translated and Furnished with Literary Historical Data. PETSE. Stockholm: ETSE, 1960.

Whittaker, C.R. Frontiers of the Roman Empire: A Social and Economic Study. Baltimore and London: John Hopkins UP, 1994.

Wickes, Jeffrey T. “Between Liturgy and School: Reassessing the Performative Context of Ephrem’s Madrāšē.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 26:1 (2018): 25-51.

———. St. Ephrem the Syrian: The Hymns on Faith. D.C.: CUA Press, 2015.

Wright, W. Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum: Acquired since the Year 1838. 4 Parts. London: Gilbert and Rivington Printers, 1870.

Young, Frances M. From Nicaea to Chalcedon: A Guide to the Literature and its Background. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2010.

376