How Greek is Ephrem’s Syriac? Ephrem’s Commentary on Genesis as a Case Study, The Journal of Early Christian Studies 23 (2015)

Journal of Early Christian Studies 23:2, 213–244 © 2015 Johns Hopkins University Press

Sections of this paper were written at different times. I wish to thank Prof. James Kugel, Prof. Aharon Shemesh, Prof. Menahem Kister and Dr. Jan van Ginkel for their insightful comments. All errors, of course, remain mine.

How Greek is Ephrem’s Syriac? Ephrem’s Commentary on Genesis as a Case Study

YIFAT MONNICKENDAM

Ephrem’s Commentary on Genesis is commonly used as a basis for studies focusing on the influence of Jewish traditions on Ephrem, and the unique Semitic character of Syriac Christianity. In recent years, however, new studies re-emphasize the importance of Greco-Roman languages and literature on the study of Syriac Christianity, and the study of Ephrem’s literature in particular. Scholars ask whether fourth-century Syriac Christianity was truly “purely Semitic,” and whether Ephrem was really unacquainted with any Greco- Roman Christian theology and practice, or the Greek language. As a result, they draw a hybrid picture of Syriac Christianity in the fourth century, influ-enced by both Semitic and Greek literary and linguistic heritage. This paper focuses on two examples from Ephrem’s Commentary on Genesis, in which Ephrem cites exegetical comments discussing the core issues of Christian theol-ogy. These comments were originally written in Greek, but their transmission into Syriac led Ephrem to obscure and enigmatic adaptations, thus revealing his lack of knowledge of Greek, yet his acquaintance with the Greco-Roman Christian theology. These adaptations, therefore, nuance Ephrem’s commit-ment to Greco-Roman Christianity. While he was committed to post-Nicene Christian theology and cited its claims, the linguistic gap between Ephrem and contemporary Greco-Roman Christian theologians, did not allow him to adapt their theological stances properly.

214 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

1. The commentary was first published with a Latin translation by Giuseppe Sim-one Assemani, Petrus Benedictus and Stefano Evodio Assemani in Sancti patris nostri Ephraem Syri opera omnia quae exstant Graece, Syriace, Latine, 6 vols. (Rome: Typo-graphia Vaticana apud Joannem Mariam Henricum Salvioni, 1732–1746), 1:1–115. Raymond Tonneau published a modern edition along with a translation to Latin, see Sancti Ephraem Syri in Genesim et in Exodum commentarii, 2 vols., CSCO 152–53 (Louvain: Durbecq, 1955). It was later translated into Dutch by Aad G. P. Janson and Lucas van Rompay as Efrem de Syriër: Uitleg van het Boek Genesis (Kampen: Kok, 1993); into English by Edward G. Mathews and Joseph P. Amar as St. Ephrem the Syrian: Selected Prose Work, FC 91 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1994); and into Arabic by Assad Assad as The Commentary of Saint Ephrem on Genesis with an Arabic Translation, Dar Mardin: Christian Arabic and Syriac Studies from the Middle East 39 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2010). Citations in this paper follow Tonneau’s edition. All translations are my own.

2. Sebastian P. Brock, “Greek and Syriac in Late Antique Syria,” in Literacy and Power in the Ancient World, eds. Alan K. Bowman and Greg Woolf (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 149–60; Brock, “Greek into Syriac and Syriac into Greek,” Journal of the Syriac Academy 3 (1977): 406–22; Brock, “From Antagonism to Assimilation: Syriac Attitudes to Greek Learning,” in East of Byzantium: Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period (Dumbarton Oaks Symposium, 1980), eds. Nina G. Garsoïan, Thomas F. Mathews, and Robert Thompson (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1982), 17–34; and Brock, “The Syriac Background,” in Archbishop Theodore: Commemorative Studies on His Life and Influence, ed. Michael Lapidge, Cambridge Studies in Anglo-Saxon England 11 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 30–53. For further discussion on the use of Aramaic dialects in the eastern Roman Empire and its strengthening status in Christian communities in late antiquity, see Fergus Millar, Rome, the Greek World, and the East, eds. Hannah M. Cotton and Guy M. Rogers (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006), 3:378–405; Millar, “The Evolution of the Syrian Orthodox Church in the Pre-Islamic Period: From Greek to Syriac?” JECS 21 (2013): 43–92.

3. Sebastian P. Brock, “Some Aspects of Greek Words in Syriac,” in Synkretismus im syrisch-persischen Kulturgebiet: Bericht über ein Symposion in Reinhausen bei Göttingen in der Zeit vom 4. bis 8. Oktober 1971, ed. Albert Dietrich, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse 3.96 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 80–108; and Brock, “Greek Words in Syriac: Some General Features,” Studia Classica Israelica 15 (1996): 251–62.

4. Sebastian P. Brock, “From Ephrem to Romanos,” SP 20 (1989): 139–51.

Ephrem’s Commentary on Genesis1 is one of the earliest systematic Syr-iac biblical commentaries known to date. Written in the fourth century, before the veritable wave of translations from Greek into Syriac,2 before the expanded use of Greek loanwords and transliterations,3 and before the increased number of Syrians writing in Greek,4 the Commentary on Genesis attracted scholarship focusing on the influence of Semitic and Jew-ish traditions on Ephrem and his writings. These studies highlighted the possible ties between the sectarian or rabbinic Jewish communities on the one hand, and the Syriac Christian communities on the other, and revealed

MONNICKENDAM / EPHREM’S COMMENTARY ON GENESIS 215

5. For some of the literature on Ephrem’s Commentary on Genesis, see Sten Hidal, Interpretatio Syriaca: Die Kommentare des heiligen Ephräm des Syrers zu Genesis und Exodus mit besondere Berücksichtigung ihrer auslegungsgeschichtlichen Stel-lung, Coniectanea Biblica: Old Testament Series 6 (Lund: Gleerup, 1974); Tryggve Kronholm, Motifs from Genesis 1–11 in the Genuine Hymns of Ephrem the Syrian with Particular Reference to the Influence of Jewish Exegetical Tradition, Coniectanea Biblica: Old Testament Series 11 (Lund: Gleerup, 1978); Joseph Feghali, “Influence des Targums sur la pensée exégétique d’Éphrem?,” Symposium Syriacum 4 (1984): 71–82; Paul Feghali, “Le Messie de Juda. Gn 49,8–10 dans Saint Ephrem et les tradi-tions judaïques,” in La vie de la Parole: de l’Ancien au Nouveau Testament, ed. Pierre Grelot (Paris: Desclée, 1987), 165–72; Adrianus G. P. Janson, De Abrahamcyclus in de Genesiscommentaar van Efrem de Syriër (Zoetermeer: Drukkerij Ribberink van der Gang, 1998); and the commentary in Mathews and Amar, St. Ephrem the Syrian. For the latest surveys on exegetical methods throughout Ephrem’s writings, see Lucas van Rompay, “The Christian Syriac Tradition of Interpretation,” in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of its Interpretation, ed. Magne Sæbø (Göttingen: Vanden-hoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 1:612–41; and Sidney H. Griffith, “Ephrem the Exegete (306–73): Biblical Commentary in the Works of Ephrem the Syrian,” in Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, ed. Charles Kannengiesser, The Bible in Ancient Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 1395–428.

6. The main representatives of this claim are Francis Crawford Burkitt, Early East-ern Christianity: St. Margaret’s Lectures, 1904, on the Syriac-Speaking Church (New York: Dutton, 1904); Robert Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom: A Study in Early Syriac Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 31; Murray, “The Characteristics of the Earliest Syriac Christianity,” in East of Byzantium: Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period, eds. Nina G. Garsoïan, Thomas F. Mathews, and Robert W. Thomson (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1982), 3–16. Later exponents are Thomas Koonammakkal, “St. Ephrem and ‘Greek Wisdom,’” Sympo-sium Syriacum 6 (1992 [1994]): 169–76; and Glen W. Bowersock, Martyrdom and Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). Brock, in the studies cited above, presents a more complex view, emphasizing the unique character of early Syriac Christianity while acknowledging its limited Hellenization, and describes Ephrem as “a meeting point between east and west,” see Sebastian Brock, The Luminous Eye: The Spiritual World Vision of Saint Ephrem, Cistercian Studies Series 124 (Kalama-zoo: Cistercian Publications, 1992), 13–21 and 143–57. When comparing Ephrem’s use of Greek loanwords to that of Narsai (399–502 c.e.), Brock shows the difference

the unique Semitic character of Syriac Christianity.5 While fruitful, such research neglected, or minimized, the study of Ephrem’s writings in light of contemporaneous and earlier Christian biblical exegesis composed in Greek and Latin.

In recent years scholars have renewed inquiries into the importance of Greek and Latin Christian literature for the study of Syriac Christian-ity in general and for the study of Ephrem’s writings in particular. These scholars question whether the Syriac Christianity of the fourth century was in fact “purely Semitic” and whether Ephrem was so unfamiliar with Greek Christian theology and practices.6 While not disputing Ephrem’s


between the vast Greek influence on Narsai and the limited influence on Ephrem a century earlier. Nevertheless, even for Brock, Ephrem is still not purely Semitic, but a writer “living in a milieu that was already considerably Hellenized,” see Sebastian Brock, “Greek Words in Ephrem and Narsai: A Comparative Sampling,” Aram 11–12 (1999–2000): 449. For a thorough survey of research on Ephrem’s acquaintance with Greek language and culture, see Ute Possekel, Evidence of Greek Philosophical Concepts on the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, CSCO 102 (Louvain: Peeters, 1999), 1–12. For the latest survey of early Greek influence on Syriac Christianity and further bibliog-raphy, see Christine Shepardson, “Syria. Syriac. Syrian: Negotiating East and West,” in A Companion to Late Antiquity, eds. Philip Rousseau and Jutta Raithel, Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World (Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 456–58.

7. Sidney H. Griffith, “Ephraem, the Deacon of Edessa, and the Church of the Empire,” in Diakonia: Studies in Honor of Robert T. Meyer, eds. Thomas P. Hal-ton and Joseph P. Williman (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1986), 22–52; 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; Griffith, “The Marks of the ‘True Church’ According to Ephraem’s Hymns against Heresies,” in After Bardaisan: Studies on Continuity and Change in Syriac Christianity in Honour of Professor Hans J. W. Drijvers, eds. Gerrit J. Reinink and Alexander C. Klugkist (Leuven: Peeters, 1999), 125–40.

8. Possekel, Evidence of Greek.9. Yifat Monnickendam, “The Kiss and the Earnest: Early Roman Influences on

Syriac Matrimonial Law,” Mus 125 (2012): 307–34.

ties to Jewish and Semitic traditions, these studies stress Ephrem’s deep commitment to post-Nicene orthodoxy and Roman imperial authority7 and reveal his familiarity with Greek philosophy8 and Roman legal cus-toms.9 They thereby draw a more complex portrait of Ephrem’s writings and literary heritage.

The question of Ephrem’s acquaintance with Greek literature and its potential influence on him is twofold: it inquires into his acquaintance both with the Greek language and with Greek literature at large, be it Christian or pagan. His familiarity with one aspect does not necessarily imply familiarity with the other. While Ephrem might not have read Greek or understood it spoken, it is possible that he was familiar with traditions that evolved within Greek-speaking communities.

In this article I wish to discuss two examples in which Ephrem uses Greek biblical commentaries in his own Commentary on Genesis. In these examples, Ephrem translates into Syriac a biblical commentary conceived and formulated in Greek, for a Greek audience and based on Greek culture, which led him to obscure and enigmatic adaptations. Studying Ephrem’s Commentary on Genesis in light of parallel Greek sources will shed light not only on his commentary, but also on the extent to which Greek Chris-


10. This claim appears first in the writing of Irenaeus (d. 202), who compared Mary to Eve, see Haer. 3.22.4 (SC 211:440), and the discussion of Pierre Nautin, “L’Adversus haereses d’Irénée, livre iii,” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 20 (1953): 196–99; and Hugo Koch, Virgo Eva—Virgo Maria: Neue Untersuchungen über die Lehre von der Jungfrauschaft und der Ehe Mariens in der ältesten Kirche, Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 25 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1937), 22–24. Eusebius later supports this claim using Deuteronomy 22.23–24 in Greek Questions 1.4–5 and 1.12 (SC 523:84–87 and 100–101). Hilary of Poitiers and Ambrose of Milan use this claim in their commentaries on the Gospels, see Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on Matthew 1.3 (SC 254:96–97) and Ambrose, Commentary on Luke 2.5 (SC 45:74). Cyril of Jerusalem uses Genesis 29:21 for this claim in Catecheses 12.31 (eds. Guilielmus C. Reischel and Josephus Rupp, Cyrilli Hierosolymarum archiepiscopi opera quae supersunt Omnia [Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1967], 2:42; FC 61:246–47). Epiphanius mentions this claim regarding Jesus’ brothers, see Panarion 78.7.10 and 78.8.2 (GCS 37:458; NHS 79:621) and 51.11.1 (GCS 31:262; NHS 79:36).

tian traditions influenced him and the means by which he adopted and adapted these traditions. Such a study will nuance the critical understand-ing of Ephrem’s commitment to Greek Christianity, and his ability—or will—to adopt and adapt to Greek biblical exegesis.

GENESIS 19.12

In the early centuries of the Common Era, one of the main theological polemics between Christians and their opponents was the polemic over the virgin birth of Jesus. Christians claimed that Mary gave birth to Jesus as a virgin while their opponents denied her virginity. This debate depended on the question of whether Mary was married to Joseph at Jesus’s concep-tion or not: if she was married to Joseph, she was probably not a virgin, but if she was merely betrothed, her virginity may still have been intact. While Christians claimed Mary and Joseph were only betrothed, their opponents claimed that they were married, and therefore Mary could not have been a virgin.

The question regarding Mary’s marital status arises directly from the New Testament. Matthew 1.18 and Luke 1.27 and 2.5 state that Mary was betrothed ( ) to Joseph, whereas in Matthew 1.20 and 1.24 and Galatians 4.4 she is called his “wife” ( ). So was Mary merely betrothed to Joseph, and thus a virgin, or was she already married, and hence had already lost her virginity? Opponents of Christianity used these verses as proof of the claim that Mary was married, whereas Christian writers sought out other biblical verses that refer to women as married while only betrothed.10 Using these examples, Christians claimed that “a


11. Josephus, Antiquities 1.202. See also Louis Ginzberg, Die Haggada bei den Kirchenvätern und in der apokryphischen Litteratur (Berlin: Calvary, 1900), 109; and Gizberg, The Legends of the Jews, trans. Henrietta Szold (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1947), 5:241.

12. Genesis Rabbah 50.14 (Judah Theodor and Chanoch Albeck, eds., Bereshit Rabba mit kritischen Apparat und Kommentar, 2d ed. [Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books 1965], 525). This claim is repeated in a different context in Genesis Rabbah 49.32 (Theodor and Albeck, 515).

13. For the latest surveys see Pierre Jay, “Jerome (Ca. 347–419/420),” in Hand-book of Patristic Exegesis, ed. Charles Kannengiesser, The Bible in Ancient Christi-anity (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2004), 2:1094–133; and René Kieffer, “Jerome: His Exegesis and Hermeneutics,” in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, 1:663–81.

14. Charles T. R. Hayward, Saint Jerome’s Hebrew Questions on Genesis, Oxford Early Christian Studies (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), 23–27.

man’s betrothed is his wife” and thus Mary, though called Joseph’s wife, was, in fact, merely betrothed to him and thus a virgin.

One of the texts supporting this claim was the commentary surrounding the story of Lot and his daughters, and their flight from Sodom. According to the biblical narrative, Lot had sons-in-law (Gen 19.14) and two vir-gin daughters (Gen 19.8), but no married daughters are mentioned. This therefore raises the question of the whereabouts of the daughters married to Lot’s sons-in-law or, instead, the relationship between the virgin daugh-ters and the sons-in-law.

Various commentators addressed this question. Josephus (ca. 37– 100 c.e.) was the first to claim that Lot had two virgin daughters who were betrothed, but not yet married, to the aforementioned sons-in-law.11 Later, the Amoraic Palestinian Midrash Genesis Rabbah presents the solu-tion that Lot had four daughters, two betrothed and two married.12

Both solutions—the claim that Lot had four daughters and the claim that he had only two daughters, already betrothed to his sons-in-law—were known to Jerome (347–420 c.e.), a Christian theologian writing in Latin, known for his Latin translation of the Bible and his acquaintance with rabbinical figures.13 Writing his Questions on Genesis in either 391 or 392 c.e.,14 Jerome asked how Lot had sons-in-law if his two daughters were virgins, and offered two possible solutions:

Et locutus est ad generos suos, qui acceperant filias eius. Quia postea duae filiae Lot virgines fuisse dicuntur (de quibus et ipse dudum ad Sodomaeos dixerat: Ecce duae filiae meae, quae non cognoverunt virum), et nunc Scriptura commemorat eum habuisse generos; nonnulli arbitrantur illas, quae viros habuerunt, in Sodomis remansisse, et eas exisse cum patre, quae virgines fuerunt. Quod cum Scriptura non dicat, Hebraea veritas exponenda est, in qua scribitur: Egressus est Lot, et locutus est ad sponsos,


15. Jerome, Questions on Genesis 19.14–15 (ed. Paul de Lagarde, Hieronymi quastiones hebraicae in libro geneseos [Osnabrück: Otto Zeller, 1967], 29); see also Hayward, Saint Jerome’s Hebrew Questions on Genesis, 51.

16. Genesis Rabbah 50.14 (Theodor and Albeck, 525). The commentator in Gen-esis Rabbah claims that should be read as the participle loqhêy, “(those who are) purchasing.” In this case it should be interpreted as if the purchase has not yet taken place, but is in the process of taking place or will be completed in the future. This remark also rejects the reading of as qa \tôl, a nomen agentis (la\qôh ˘êy, “purchas-ers”), which could be taken to imply that the purchaser had already acquired that status, as the purchase would have already taken place. The reading of as loqh ˘êy turns the reference to a future or incomplete action rather than to a past one. For the future use of the participle see, for example, m. Berakot 5.4. For the use of the word

as a nomen agentis, see m. Ketubbot 8.1 and 9.8. For further discussion and examples of nomina agentis in other roots see Moshe H. Segal, (Jeru-salem: Dvir, 1936), 75; Segal, “ ,” Lesonénu 10 (1939): 154–56; Hanoch Yalon, Studies in the Hebrew Language (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1971), 15; and Moshe Bar Asher, “ ,” Lesonénu 41 (1977): 95–97. Moshe H. Segal and Edward Y. Kutscher, “Studies in Galilean Aramaic,” Tarbiz 21–23 (1950–52): 19 claim this form could be influenced by Aramaic. For its appearance in Ara-maic and Arabic, see Meir M. Bravmann, “The Aramaic nomen agentis qa\to\l and Some Similar Phenomena of Arabic,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 34.1 (1971): 1–4.

qui accepturi erant filias eius. Necdum igitur virgines filiae matrimonio fuerant copulatae.15

And he spoke to his sons-in-law who had taken his daughters [in marriage]. Because Lot’s two daughters are later said to have been virgins, he himself had previously mentioned them to the Sodomites, Behold my two daughters, who have not known a man, and [because] Scripture now recounts that he has sons-in-law, there are some who think that the ones who had husbands remained in Sodom, and that those who were virgins left with their father. Since Scripture does not say this, the Hebrew truth must be set forth, in which it is written: Lot went out and spoke to the betrothed men who were about to take his daughters [in marriage]. Thus the virgin daughters had not yet been joined in marriage.

Jerome differentiates between two solutions to this problem: his solution and the one he attributes to nonnulli, the “some” who, like Genesis Rab-bah, claimed that Lot did not only have two virgin daughters, but that he also had other daughters, married to the aforementioned sons-in-law.16 Jerome nevertheless rejects this solution and retranslates the Hebrew verse to explain that the sons-in-law are actually future sons-in-law, bridegrooms betrothed to Lot’s virgin daughters.

The Hebrew verse (Gen 19.14) had been translated as “his sons-in-law who had taken his daughters.” Jerome alters this trans-lation in two ways: first, while the earlier translation used the past perfect


17. The Vulgate gives accepturi erant, while acceperant was preserved in the European manuscripts of the Vetus Latina (S), see Bonifatius Fischer, Vetus Latina: Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel, 4 vols., Genesis (Freiburg: Herder, 1951–1954), 1:210. According to Benjamin Kedar, “The Latin Translations,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading, and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, eds. Martin J. Mulder and Harry Sysling (Assen/Philadelphia: Van Gorcum/Fortress Press, 1988), 299–338, Jerome translated the Pentateuch between 398–405 c.e., at least six years after writing the Questions on Genesis. For the latest discussion on the relations between the Vetus Latina and the Vulgate, see David L. Everson, “The Vetus Latina and the Vulgate of the Book of Genesis,” in The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation, eds. Craig A. Evans, Joel N. Lohr, and David L. Petersen, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 152 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 519–36.

18. For the latest discussion regarding Jerome’s knowledge of Hebrew and further bibliography, see Hillel I. Newman, “How Should We Measure Jerome’s Hebrew Competence?,” in Jerome of Stridon: His Life, Writings and Legacy, eds. Andrew Cain and Josef Lössl (Farnham: Ashgate, 2009), 131–40.

19. For Eusebius of Emesa’s dates and biography, see Robert B. ter Haar Romeny, A Syrian in Greek Dress: The Use of Greek, Hebrew and Syriac Biblical Texts in Eusebius of Emesa’s Commentary on Genesis, Traditio Exegetica Graeca 6 (Louvain: Peeters, 1997), 7–12.

tense (acceperant), as if the daughters are already taken in marriage, Jerome translated it using future participle (accepturi erant) to indicate that they were about to be taken, but were not taken yet.17 Second, while this trans-lation understood the word (ha¨ta \na\yw) as “sons-in-law” (generos), Jerome understood the word (ha¨ta \na\yw) as “betrothed men” (spon-sos), that is, future sons-in-law. He therefore translates “betrothed men who were about to take his daughters [in marriage].”18

In this paragraph Jerome, like Josephus and Genesis Rabbah, addressed an exegetical problem regarding the relationship between Lot’s virgin daughters and his sons-in-law. The solution Josephus and Jerome offered was that the sons-in-law were actually future sons-in-law, betrothed to Lot’s virgin daughters. This solution, however, found applications beyond exegesis of these biblical passages. Contemporaneous and earlier Christian writers used this same exegetical solution to address the theological and polemical problem of the virgin birth. In two short exegetical comments, both from the fourth century, Eusebius of Emesa (ca. 300–360 c.e.) and John Chrysostom (347–407 c.e.) linked the claim of Lot’s sons-in-law as future sons-in-law to the status of Mary and the polemic regarding her marriage and her virginity.

The Commentary on Genesis by Eusebius of Emesa19 was preserved only in fragments found in several catenae. Commenting on the story of Lot and the Sodomites, he writes:


20. Catenae Graecae in Genesim et in Exodum §100 (CCSG 2:102) = La Chaîne sur la Genèse, ed. Françoise Petit, 4 vols., Traditio Exegetica Graeca (Louvain: Peeters, 1991–1996), §1128. This commentary was also preserved in Procopius’s writings, as Petit noted. For the relations between the Catena and Procopius, see ter Haar Romeny, Syrian in Greek Dress, 19–25.

21. Matt 1.16. For further discussion on these sources and the possible correlation with the Septuagint and Josephus’s Antiquities, see Adam Kamesar, Jerome, Greek Scholarship, and the Hebrew Bible: A Study of the Quaestiones Hebraicae in Genesim, Oxford Classical Monographs (Oxford/New York: Clarendon/Oxford University Press, 1993), 168–72; Hayward, Saint Jerome’s Hebrew Questions, 169–70.

22. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew 4.6 (PG 57:46); John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis 43.25 (PG 54:403; FC 82:449–50).

.20

How does he call them [the daughters] “virgins” above? Surely he calls them betrothed men and sons-in-law, just as the New [Testament] calls Joseph “the husband of Mary.”21

Later, John Chrysostom repeats this claim. He mentions it not only as part of his Homilies on Genesis, but also as part of his Homilies on Matthew, where he writes:

22

And here he calls her that is betrothed “a wife,” as indeed the Scripture is wont to call betrothed husbands sons-in-law even before marriage.

Eusebius of Emesa and John Chrysostom claim that calling a future son-in-law a son-in-law from the time of betrothal indicates that one may also call a betrothed woman a wife from the time of her betrothal. They relate this extrapolation to Mary, who was merely betrothed to Joseph, but is, nevertheless, called his wife. In so doing, Eusebius of Emesa and John Chrysostom use this biblical commentary as a solution not only to an exegetical problem, but also to a theological and polemical problem.

*

Based on this exegetical and theological context, we may turn to Ephrem’s commentary on the story of Lot and his daughters. Ephrem, like his contemporaries and predecessors, knew the theological polemic regard-ing the virgin birth and mentioned, both in his biblical commentary and his hymns, different versions of the claim that a betrothed person may be called a married person starting from the moment of betrothal and,


23. See Ephrem, Hymns on the Nativity 2.12–15 (CSCO 186:16–17; CSCO 187:14–15); Ephrem, Hymns on Nisibis 20.4–5 (CSCO 218:54; CSCO 219:66); Ephrem, Diatessaron 2.1 (Pedro O. Valdivieso, “Un Nuevo fragment siriaco del Comentar de san Efrém al Diatésaron,” in Saint Éphrem: Commentaire de l’Évangile Concordant Texte Syriaque (Manuscript Chester Beatty 709 Folios Additionnels, ed. Louis Leloir, Chester Beatty Monographs 8 [Leuven: Peeters, 1990], 150; Carmel McCarthy, Saint Ephrem’s Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron: An English Translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709 with Introduction and Notes, Journal of Semitic Studies Supple-ment 2 [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993], 60).

24. See Ephrem, Genesis 27.3 (CSCO 71:90; FC 91:175).25. Singular in MT ( ), but plural in the Peshitta ( ), the Septuagint ( )

and MT Gen. 19.14, as well as in the paraphrased version in Ephrem’s commentary: (Ephrem, Commentary on Genesis

16.5 [CSCO 152:78; FC 91:161]).26. Ephrem, Genesis 16.5 (CSCO 152:78; FC 91:161).

therefore, that Mary, though called Joseph’s wife, was merely betrothed to him.23 Ephrem nevertheless used this widespread claim in certain cases as a solution for an exegetical problem without referencing its theological and polemical background.24

As stated above, Genesis 19 tells the story of the flight of Lot and his daughters from Sodom and records that Lot had sons-in-law (19.14) and virgin daughters (19.8). Not only are any married daughters missing from this description but also are any sons. They are mentioned neither as part of the family leaving Sodom nor as part of the family living in Sodom. Only when the angels tell Lot about the destruction looming over the city (Gen. 19.12) do they mention Lot’s sons.

The two angels arrive at Sodom and meet Lot at the city’s gates. After repeated invitations, they agree to accompany Lot home for dinner. Before going to bed the angels confront the Sodomites who had gathered around the house, wishing to abuse the guests. The angels strike the Sodomites, tell Lot about the expected destruction of the city, and ask him: “Whom else have you here? Sons-in-law,25 your sons and daughters, and anyone else that you have in the city—bring them out of the place” (Gen. 19.12). At this point Ephrem stops his periphrastic narration of the story and comments:

.26.

He called his sons-in-law “sons” because he intends to bring them as sons to his daughters.

Ephrem seems to be inquiring into the identity of the sons mentioned by the angels but nowhere else, deducing that these “sons” are actually future sons-in-law. This reading, however, raises a few questions: what does it


27. A few paragraphs later, the daughters of Lot call these men brothers. Telling their father what happened between them and the men to whom they are betrothed, the daughters say:

(“Although nature made us brides to them, your lack of sons made us sisters to them”); see Ephrem, Commentary on Genesis 16.11 (CSCO 152:80; FC 91:164). These daughters claim that the lack of sons made the future sons-in-law their siblings, thus equivalent to actual sons. But they never call them sons, instead using the common way to refer to future spouses: “betrothed men”; see Yifat Monnickendam, “Articulating Marriage: Ephrem’s Legal Terminology and its Origins,” Journal of Semtic Studies 58 (2013): 259–64.

28. On the difference between analogical and genealogical parallels, see Jona-than Z. Smith, Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity, Jordan Lectures in Comparative Religion 14 (London/Chicago: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London/University of Chicago Press, 1990); Gerald Seelig, Religionsgeschichtliche Methode in Vergangen-heit und Gegenwart: Studien zur Geschichte und Methode des Religionsgeschichtli-chen Vergleichs in der Neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft, Arbeiten zur Bibel und Ihrer Geschichte 7 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2001).

mean “to bring someone as a son to one’s daughter”? Could a potential spouse be brought as a son rather than as a husband? Does Ephrem mean that the sons-in-law will be brought as sons to Lot, that is, as brothers to his daughters?27 Why is being a son described as a relation posterior to son-in-law ( )? Does Ephrem prefer calling future husbands “sons” to calling them “husbands” in other places? And above all these questions, why should Ephrem make this obscure and unclear exegetical comment in the first place?

Ephrem’s comment does not stand on its own, but is similar, in context and content, to the exegetical comments we have seen above, above all Jerome’s. Both Ephrem and Jerome discuss the same biblical episode—that of Lot and his daughters—and address similar exegetical problems. Ephrem asks who the sons are, since they are missing from the biblical narrative, and Jerome asks who the married daughters are, since these too are absent from the biblical narrative. Their answers are also similar. Ephrem prob-ably claims that the sons are actually future sons-in-law and Jerome claims that the sons-in-law are actually the future sons-in-law betrothed to Lot’s daughters. It seems, therefore, that Jerome’s and Ephrem’s comments are genealogically linked to one another—that is, they are a result of transmis-sion of one exegetical tradition, rather than independent developments of similar exegetical traditions in two different regions.28 As a result, reading Ephrem’s comment in light of Jerome’s comment may explain Ephrem’s obscure phrasing.

The linguistic basis for Jerome’s comment is that in biblical Hebrew, unlike with Greek and Latin, the term for sons-in-law may refer to


29. Monnickendam, “Articulating Marriage,” 264–69. 30. The claim that Jewish betrothal is more binding than Roman betrothal appears

already in rabbinic sources; see y. Qiddušin 1.1, 58b–c (ed. Yaacov Sussmann, Talmud Yerushalmi: According to Ms. Or 4720 (Scal. 3) of the Leiden University Library with Restorations and Corrections [Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2001], 1138:2–7); similarly in Sifra, ah≥rei mot 13.1 and qedošim 10.2 (J. H. Weiss, ed., Sifra: Commentar zu Leviticus [Wien: Jacon Schlossberg, 1862], 85b and 91a); t. ‘Abodah Zarah 8.4 (ed. Moshe S. Zuckermandel, Tosephta: Based on the Erfurt and Vienna Codices [Jerusalem: Wahrmann 1970], 473); and b. Sanhedrin 57b. For some of the vast comparative research on the concept of betrothal in Roman and rabbinic law, see Jacob Neubauer, Beiträge zur Geschichte des biblisch-talmudischen Eheschliessungsrechts; eine Rechtsvergleichend-Historische Studie, Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft (E. V.) 25 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1920), 184–89; Asher Gulak, “Deed of Betrothal and Oral Stipulations in Talmudic Law,” Tarbiz 3 (1932): 361–76; Gulak, “ in Betrothal According to the Jer. Talmud,” Tarbiz 5 (1934): 126–33; Gulak, “Justinian Caesar’s Novella No. 97 and its Talmudic Antecedents,” Shenaton Ha-Mishpat Ha-ivri 9–10 (1982–83): 5–13; Gulak, Legal Documents of the Talmud in the Light of Greek Papyri and Greek and Roman Law, ed. Ranon Katzoff (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1994); Boaz Cohen, “On the Theme of Betrothal in Jew-ish and Roman Law,” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 18 (1948–49): 67–138; Cohen, Jewish and Roman Law: A Comparative Study, 2 vols. (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1966); Jean Gaudemet, “L’originalité des fiançailles romaines,” Iura 6 (1955): 47–77; Fritz Schulz, Classical Roman Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951), 109–10; Ranon Katzoff, “Comment on Gulak’s Article [Justinian Caesar’s Novella No. 97 and Its Talmudic Antecedents],” Shenaton Ha-Mishpat Ha-ivri 9–10 (1982–83): 15–28; Katzoff, “Philo and Hillel on Violation of Betrothal in Alexandria,” in The Jews in the Hellenistic-Roman World: Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern, eds. Aharon Oppenheimer, Isaiah M. Gafni, and Daniel R. Shwartz (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, 1996), 39–57; and Menahem Kister, “From Philotas to Hillel: ‘Betrothal’ Contracts and Their Violation,” Scripta Classica Israelica 21 (2002): 57–60.

betrothed men, who are in fact future sons-in-law. While this stance is indeed true with respect to biblical Hebrew, it is also true in Ephrem’s Syriac.29 The word (h ˘atne\) could refer both to sons-in-law and to bridegrooms—future sons-in-law. Furthermore, in Ephrem’s writings, as in rabbinic halakhah, betrothal is not only referred to as marriage, its legal status is also very close to that of marriage. For Ephrem and in rabbinic halakhah, betrothal was as binding as marriage: a betrothed woman who fornicates is treated as an adulteress and annulling a betrothal requires divorce.30 So while Greek and Latin writers needed to explain that a future son-in-law is already called a son-in-law, no such explanation was required in Syriac. In fact, such an explanation is almost impossible in Syriac. A direct translation into Syriac of the Greek and Latin claim that “sons-in-law” are actually future sons-in-law would result in the tautological statement: (hatne\) are (h ˘atne\).


31. Other than Ephrem, this question is raised only in a medieval midrash, with a similar answer, see Midrash Aggada on Genesis (Buber, 44), 19.12:

. The late-antique Palestinian midrash Genesis Rabbah presents, on a different verse, 84:35) ; Theodor and Albeck, 1026 line 7) and likewise in Tanhuma Genesis Vayešew (Buber) 10. This formulation still underscores the need to explain that a person would call his son-in-law his son, thus indicating that they are not the same. Legal rabbinic literature strictly differentiates between the two, see for example y. Sanhedrin 3.4, 21b (Hebrew Academy, 1282 lines 26–40). See also Adiel Schremer’s claim that specific kinship terminology in rabbinic Hebrew could refer to relatives more generally, in “Kinship Terminology and Endogamous Marriage in the Mishnaic and Talmudic Periods,” Zion 60 (1995): 5–35. This phenomenon, however, is not attested in cases of father or son-in-law. I wish to thank Dr. Arnon Atzmon for the reference from Midrash Aggasa on Genesis.

32. I wish to thank Amit Gvaryahu and Shira Golani for helping to clarify and sharpen this point.

To adapt and use Jerome’s statement, Ephrem could have replaced one of the instances of (hatne\) with a different word. It seems that he replaced its second use, as sons-in-law, with the word (bnaye\), “sons.” His comment— .

(“he called his sons-in-law ‘sons’ because he intends to bring them as sons to his daughters”)—is therefore a revision of a different exegetical claim, adapted to suit Syriac vocabulary. Instead of claiming that sons-in-law are actually betrothed men, that is, future sons-in-law, Ephrem claimed that the sons mentioned in the verse are actu-ally sons-in-law. This adaptation, however, is still unclear, since it describes Lot as a man giving his daughters their partners as sons, which is meaningless.

The verse to which Ephrem attached this exegetical comment may explain his use of it as well as support the suggested reconstruction. Accord-ing to Ephrem, this stance is a commentary on Genesis 19.12: “Whom else have you here? Sons-in-law, your sons and daughters, and anyone else that you have in the city—bring them out of the place.” As such, it answers the exegetical question of the sons mentioned by the angels yet appear nowhere else and serves as a sufficient basis for identifying the sons, (bnaye\), with the sons-in-law, (h ˘atne\).31 For Jerome, however, this is a commentary on Genesis 19.14, “and he spoke to his sons-in-law who had taken his daughters.” As such, it answers the exegetical question con-cerning Lot’s having sons-in-law while his two daughters are virgins.32 The answers to Jerome’s and Ephrem’s exegetical questions reveal the differ-ence between them. Genesis 19.12 raises a question regarding sons, while verse 14 raises a question regarding sons-in-law, a concept that would not


33. Jerome knew Ephrem and claimed he read some of his work; see De viris illustribus 115 (TU 14:51; FC 100:149). There is no evidence that Ephrem knew Jerome or his work.

34. For Jerome’s theological use of this exegetical stance, see Contra Helvidium 4 (PL 23:186c; FC 53:14); and Commentary on Matthew 1.16 and 20 (SC 242:74–77 and 78–81). For further discussion on Jerome’s view on Mary’s virginity, see David G. Hunter, “Helvidius, Juvinian and the Virginity of Mary in Late Fourth-Century Rome,” JECS 1 (1993): 47–71; Hunter, Marriage, Celibacy, and Heresy in Ancient Christianity: The Jovinianist Controversy, Oxford Early Christian Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 187–92; and Irven M. Resnick, “Marriage in Medi-eval Culture: Consent Theory and the Case of Joseph and Mary,” CH (2000): 354–56.

raise questions in Syriac in the first place. Since Ephrem is using an exist-ing exegetical solution but adapting it into Syriac, his comment turns out to be obscure and unclear, leaving traces of the adaptation process.

It should be noted, however, that even though in this case Ephrem is not using this exegetical comment to support a theological claim, the theologi-cal significance of such a comment may be the reason for its widespread appearance in early and contemporaneous Christian writings and, thus, the reason for Ephrem’s acquaintance with both its exegetical and theo-logical forms. Furthermore, while Ephrem adapted an exegetical comment found in Jerome’s writing, he did not actually know Jerome’s Questions on Genesis. In fact, Ephrem could not have known this composition, since Jerome wrote it in either 391 or 392 c.e., almost twenty years after Ephrem’s death.33 In his Questions on Genesis, Jerome merely presents a full and clear version of the exegetical claim that sons-in-law are actually future sons-in-law, but he is not the first one to suggest this idea. Evidence for this exegetical comment appears as early as Josephus, and is in use by Jerome’s predecessors, who cited it because of its theological impor-tance. Though Jerome does not mention this theological background in the commentary discussed here, he did, in fact, know it, and addressed it in other occasions.34

Eusebius of Emesa, one of the Christian writers who evidenced the claim that a betrothed woman may be called a wife using the story of Lot and his daughters, lived and wrote close to Ephrem and could well have been known to him. Born in Edessa in the early fourth century and active throughout Syria, Eusebius of Emesa was probably part of Ephrem’s milieu. Writing in Greek, he is a fitting example of exegetical trends in Ephrem’s time and can explain Ephrem’s acquaintance with a commentary based on Greek or Latin, rather than Syriac.

In summary, the clarity of this commentary in Latin and Greek in com-parison with its obscurity in Syriac indicates that it was originally written


35. The vast literature on this topic cannot be surveyed here. The chief survey of the various Jewish and Christian exegetical sources on this verse is Adolf Posnanski’s Schiloh: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Messiaslehre (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1904). For further discussion on the optional messianic readings of this verse, see Klaus Seybold, Die Sprache der Propheten: Studies zur Literaturgeschichte der Prophetie (Zürich: Pano, 1999), 18–34; and Hans C. Schmitt, “Eschatologische Stammesgeschichte in Pentateuch. Zum Judaspruch von Gen 49,8–12,” in Antikes Judentum und frühes Christentum: Festschrift für Hartmut Stegemann zum 65. Geburstag, eds. Bernd Kollman, Wolfgang Reinbold, and Annette Steudel, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 97 (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1999), 1–11. For a survey of the Jewish sources, see Oskar Skarsaune, The Proof from Prophecy. A Study in Justin Martyr’s Proof-Text Tradition: Text-Type, Provenance, Theological Profile, Supplements to Novum Testamentum 61 (Leiden: Brill, 1987), 260–73. For its early Christian exegesis, see Joseph Blenkinsopp, “The Oracle of Judah and the Messianic Entry,” JBL 80 (1961): 55–65; and Deborah Krause, “The One Who Comes Unbind-ing the Blessing of Judah: Mark 11.1–10 as a Midrash on Genesis 49.11, Zechariah 9.9 and Psalm 118.25–26,” in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scripture of Israel: Investigations and Proposals, eds. Craig A. Evans and James A Sanders, JSNT Supple-ment Series 148 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 141–53.

36. For a survey of its inner-biblical exegesis and its Second-Temple exegesis, see James L. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible As It Was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), 469–74. For the latest article on this topic in Qumranic literature, see Richard C. Steiner, “Four Inner-Biblical Interpretations of Genesis 49:10: On the Lexical and Syntactic Ambigui-ties of as Reflected in the Prophecies of Nathan, Ahijah, Ezekiel and Zechariah,” JBL 132 (2013): 33–60; and below, note 74.

in one of these languages rather than in Syriac. This obscurity, however, also emphasizes the unique adjustments Ephrem made and thereby high-lights his legal and linguistic context. His context is closer to the Jewish legal and linguistic reality, in which sons-in-law and future sons-in-law are similar in name and status, and not to Roman legal and linguistic reality which distinguishes between sons-in-law and future sons-in-law. Ephrem’s exegetical comment on Lot and his daughters thus reflects his acceptance and adaptation of a widespread Christian theological claim, together with his preserving of his Semitic legal and linguistic background.

GENESIS 49.10

The blessing of Judah, and especially the enigmatic phrasing of verse 10——was the

basis for messianic exegesis, starting from exegesis in the Hebrew Bible itself and through Qumran’s literature and the Jewish-Christian polemic.35 According to this exegesis, the Messiah will come from the tribe of Judah.36 Following it, early Christian writers attributed this verse to Jesus, while


37. Christian writers tied this verse to Jesus even without explaining the exegeti-cal and historical background; see Hippolytus, Benedictions 17 (PO 27:80); Ps. Hip-polytus, Consummation of the World 18 (GCS 1.2:295); Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica 2.2.7 (GCS 23:58); Eusebius, Isaiah 1.62 (on Isa 11.10, GCS, Eusebius Werke IX:85); Eusebius, Psalms 71.16–17 (PG 23:817); Ps. Basil, Isaiah 9.227 (Pie-tro Trevisan, ed., Commento al profeta Isaia, Corpora patrum salesiana 5 [Torino: Società editrice internazionale, 1939], 300–301); Epiphanius, Panarion 42.11.17.27 (GCS 31:136; NHS 63:324–25), 51.22.21 (GCS 31:289; NHS 79:53), and 66.74.8 (GCS 37:116; NHS 79:302); Ps. Epiphanius, Testimony Book 5.1 (Robert V. Hotch-kiss, ed., A Pseudo-Epiphanius Testimony Book, Texts and Translation 4 [Missoula: SBL and Scholars Press, 1974], 18–19); John Chrysostom, Homilies on John 33.2 (PG 33:190); John Chrysostom, De Chananea 23 (for the Greek, see PG 52:454; for the Latin, see PL 66:120; for the Syriac, see David Bundy, “The Syriac Version of De Chananaea Attributed to John Chrysostom (CPG) 4529),” Mus 96 [1983]: 118 [Peshitta version]); Greek Ephrem, Ad Ioannem monachum (Konstantinos G. Phrantzoles, ed., [Thessalonica: To Perivoli tis Panagias, 1995], 6:185); Theodoret, Commentary on Psalms 65.4 (PG 80:1349; FC 101:366) and 70.19 (PG 80:1425; FC 101:411 [70.9 in FC]); Theodoret, Isaiah 15.49.1 (SC 315:72–73); Theodoret, Ezekiel 21.27 (PG 81:1017) and 31.10–11 (PG 81:1124); Theodoret, Haereticarum fabularum compendium 5.14 (PG 83:500); Theodoret, Era-nistes 1 (Gerhard H. Ettlinger, ed., Theodoret of Cyrus: Eranistes [Oxford: Clarendon 1975], 71 and 77; FC 106:39 and 45); and Ps. Athanasius, Homily on the Passion 32 (for the Greek, see PG 28:241; for the Syriac, see CSCO 324:133 and 325:92). For a survey of research regarding the attribution of this homily to Athanasius, see Hubertus R. Drobner, “Eine pseudo-athanasianische Osterpredigt (CPG II 2247) über die Wahrheit Gottes und ihre Erfüllung” in Christian Faith and Greek Philosophy in Late Antiquity: Essays in Tribute to George Christopher Stead in Celebration of His Eightieth Birthday, eds. Lionel R. Wickham, Caroline R. Bammel, and Erica C. D. Hunter (Leiden: Brill, 1993), 43–51.

38. See Justin Martyr, Apology 32.3 and 32.14 (SC 507:214–17); Origen, Contra Celsum 1.53 (SC 132:220–21); Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica 1.3.45–46 (GCS 23:18), 3.2.33–38 (GCS 23:101–2), 7.1.116 (GCS 23:320), 8.1.23–24 (GCS 23:356) and 8.1.29–33 and 35–38 (GCS 23:356–59); and Eusebius, General Elementary Intro-duction 1.8 (Thomas Gaisford, ed., Eusebii Pamphili Episcopi Cæsariensis Eclogae pro-

Jewish exegetes attributed it to Jewish leaders or to a messiah who is yet to come. The “correct” reading of this verse was, therefore, part of a vehe-ment polemic regarding the identity of the Messiah and the validity of the Christian faith.

The Christian goal was to prove that Jesus fulfills the Messiah’s descrip-tion in Jacob’s blessing to Judah. If he did, than he would be the promised Messiah, but if others fulfilled it, then Jesus would not be the Messiah, and the Christian faith would have no basis.37 Three arguments served Christian writers who sought to prove this point. The first was that Judah mentioned in the blessing is neither Judah the patriarch nor the Davidic dynasty, but rather the whole Jewish nation, which is named after Judah’s tribe.38 According to this argument the verse should be read as follows:


pheticae [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1842], 22). See also Origen, Commentary on John 1.23 §142–143 (SC 120:132–34), where he asks how this verse could refer to Jesus yet be addressed to Judah, but claims he will answer this question elsewhere.

39. The phrase had two common Greek translations: (“until the things reserved for him come”), and

(“until the one to whom they are reserved comes”). The first translation, which sev-eral Christian writers attribute to the Jews, is that of the Septuagint; see for example Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 52.2 and 120.3–4, (Philippe Bobichon, ed., Justin Martyr: Dialogue avec Tryphon, 2 vols., Paradosis 47 [Fribourg: Academic Press, 2003], 1:316–17 and 1:506–7); Julian, Contra Galilaeos 253D (Emanuela Masa racchia, ed., Giuliano Imperatore. Contra Galilaeos, Testi e commenti 9 [Rome: Edizioni del l’Ateneo 1990], 157). The second version better suits Christian apolo-getics, since it refers to a person (such as Jesus) rather than to things, and is indeed more common in Christian writings. Some Christians nevertheless continued using the first version without mentioning the second; see for example Origen, Contra Cel-sum 1.53 (SC 132:220–21); and Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica 8.1.2 and 8.1.25 (GCS 23:352 and 23:356), who attributes the second version to Symmachus in 8.1.34 (GCS 23:358). For further discussion see Skarsaune, The Proof from Prophecy, 25–29; David Rokéah ≥, Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho the Jew (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2004), 149–50. A third and much less common version is , cited in Ps. Clement, Homilies 3.49 (GCS 42:75) and discussed in Alison Salvesen, Sym-machus in the Pentateuch, Journal of Semitic Studies Monograph 15 (Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 1991), 61–62.

40. See Matt 1.2–16 and Luke 3.23–38. 41. For the significance of the Davidic lineage in the New Testament, see Sherman E.

Johnson, “The Davidic Royal Motif in the Gospels,” JBL 87 (1968): 136–50; Mar-shall D. Johnson, The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies, with Special Reference to the Setting of the Genealogies of Jesus, Society for New Testament Studies Mono-graph Series 8 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 139–256; and David Flusser, Jesus (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2001), 25–26 and 180–86; see also Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, The Anchor Bible Referance Library (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 505–12; and Martin Karrer, “Von David zu Christus,” in König David—Biblische Schlüsselfigur und europäiche Leitgestalt, eds. Walter Dietrich and Hubert Herkommer (Freiburg: Kohlhammer, 2003), 327–65. For the biblical and early Jewish Davidic traditions, see Kenneth Pomykala, The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism: Its History and Significance for Messianism, SBL Early Judaism and

“A ruler shall not cease from among the Jews and a leader from his thighs until the one to whom they are reserved39 comes and he is the expectation of the nations.”

The second argument addresses Jesus’ origin. According to Christian exegesis, this verse describes another descendant from Judah’s tribe and from a Davidic dynasty as the Messiah, rather than Judah the Patriarch or rulers from his tribe. Attributing Jesus to a Davidic dynasty appears in Christian literature as early as the New Testament40 and is argued repeat-edly in Christian apologetic texts.41 They state clearly that Jesus’ Davidic


its Literature 7 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995); Ernst-Joachim Waschke, “The Sig-nificance of the David Tradition for the Emergence of Messianic Beliefs in the Old Testament,” Word & World 23 (2003): 413–20; and Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The One Who Is to Come (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 33–55.

42. See Manuscript D of Testament of Solomon (Chester Charlton McCown, ed., The Testament of Solomon [Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs 1922], 89); Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica 1.3.45–46 (GCS 23:18) and 7.3.53–58 (GCS 23:346–47); John Chrysos-tom, Homilies on Matthew (PG 57:28); but see also. Ps. Gregory of Nyssa, Adversus Iudaeos 2.7 (Martin C. Albl, ed., Pseudo-Gregory of Nyssa: Testimonies against the Jews, SBL Writings from the Greco-Roman World 5 [Atlanta: SBL, 2004], 20–22).

43. See Justin Martyr, Apology 32.1–3 (SC 507:212–15); Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 52.3–4 (Bobichon, 1:316–17); Hippolytus, Antichrist 7–9 (GCS 1.2:8–10); Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10.21 (SC 162:244–45); Eusebius, Demon-stratio Evangelica 1.3.45–46 (GCS 23:18), 3.2.33–38 (GCS 23:101–2), 7.3.53–58 (GCS 23:346–47) and 8.1.9–20 (GCS 23:354–55); Ps. Clement, Homilies 3.49 (GCS 42:75); Athanasius, On the Incarnation 40.3 (SC 199:406–7); Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses 12.17–19 (Reischel and Rupp, 2:22–29; FC 61:237–39); Epiphanius, Panarion 29.1.1–29.3.9 (GCS 25:321–24; NHS 63:123–25); Theodoret, Questions 112.3 (John Petruccione and Robert C. Hill, eds., The Questions on the Octateuch, 2 vols., The Library of Early Christianity 1–2 [Washington DC: Catholic Univer-sity of America, 2007], 1:208–9); Theodoret, Jeremiah 34.17 (PG 81:676); Cyril of Alexandria, Twelve Prophets: Hosea 1 (Philip E. Pusey, ed., Sancti patris nostri cyrilli archiepiscopi alexandrini in XII prophetas, 2 vols. [Oxford: Clarendon Press 1868], 1:30–31; FC 115:53); Twelve Prophets: Zechariah 11 (Pusey, 2:460; FC 124:220); Cyril of Alexandria, Glaphyra 7 (PG 69:356); and Ps. Ephrem, Sermons II 3.545–57 (CSCO 311:68 and 312:87–88).

44. See Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 52.3 (Bobichon, 1:316–17); Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica 3.2.33–38 (GCS 23:101–2), 8.1.16 and 19 (GCS 23:354–55) and 8.1.45–46 (GCS 23:360); Eusebius, General Elementary Introduction 1.8 and 3.26 (Gaisford, 24–25 and 158); Cyril of Alexandria, Twelve Prophets: Hosea 1 (Pusey, 1:30–31; FC 115:53); and Epiphanius, Panarion 51.22.21 (GCS 31:289; NHS 79:53). This claim is based on Josephus (Wars 1.123 and Antiquities 14.403), who claimed that Herod’s father was Idumaean. Josephus also describes Herod as a —of a common family (Antiquities 14.491). It should be noted that even though Josephus uses this term to describe non-Jews (Wars 2.498 and 4.654), its most common use is

lineage proved that he fulfills the initial criteria of the messiah described in Judah’s blessing.42

Elaborating on these two arguments, Christian writers claimed that Jesus was not only capable of being the messiah since he was of Davidic lineage, but that he was, in fact, the Messiah. They argued that Jewish, and even Davidic, rule had ceased by Jesus’ time. Since Jewish rule will not cease until the coming of a messiah, according to the biblical blessing, and Jesus came after this cessation, he fulfills the biblical blessing and is, therefore, the anticipated Messiah.43 This claim is based on the historical assumption that Herod was not Jewish.44 Had Herod been Jewish, Jewish rule would not have ceased before Jesus’ coming.

According to the third Christian argument, the Messiah is supposed to


to describe Jews either who are not priests or zealots (Life 197; Antiquities 13.298 and 14.78; Wars 4.197), common dwellers of cities such as Jerusalem (Wars 2.274, 4.202, 4.397, 6.277 and 6.384–86), Tiberias (Life 284) or Giscala (Wars 4.86 and 4.97), or simply common Jews (Antiquities 3.212 and 20.169; Wars 510), including a contrastive use, simple Jews who are not Herod (Antiquities 17.148).

45. See Origen, Contra Celsum 1.53 (SC 132:220–21). 46. See Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 120.3–5 (Bobichon, 1:506–7). For

further discussion of Justin Martyr’s messianic exegesis see Skarsaune, The Proof from Prophecy, 140–44; and Rokéah ≥, Justin Martyr, 149–52 and 275–77. Jesus is also claimed to be the expectation of all nations by Didymus the Blind, Zacharias 3.57 (SC 84:644–45); see also Eusebius, General Elementary Introduction 4.8 (Gaisford, 188); Athanasius, On the Incarnation 36 (SC 199:392–95); and Athanasius, Dialogue with Zacchaeus 47–48 (Will Varner, ed., Ancient Jewish-Christian Dialogues: Athanasius and Zacchaeus, Simon and Theophilus, Timothy and Aquila, Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 58 [Lewiston: E. Mellen, 2004], 46–47).

47. In some cases they only mention that there are other readings, without provid-ing details; see John Chrysostom, Homilies on Hosea 2.3 (SC 277:98–99).

48. Dialogue with Trypho 52 (Bobichon, 1:316–17).49. De principiis 4.1.3 (SC 268:268–69) = Philocalia 1.3 (Armitage J. Robinson,

ed., The Philocalia of Origen: The Text Revised with a Critical Introduction and Indices [Cambridge: University Press, 1893], 9–10). See also Cyril of Jerusalem, who hints in Catecheses 12.17 (Reischel and Rupp, 2:24; FC 61:238) at the Jewish claim that their current Patriarchs are from Judah.

50. See Theodoret, Commentary on Isaiah 4.11.10 (SC 295:50–51); and Theodo-ret, Commentary on Jeremiah 34.17 (PG 81:676).

51. See Julian, Contra Galilaeos 253D (Masaracchia, 157); and Athanasius, Dia-logue with Zacchaeus 47–48 (Varner, Ancient Dialogues, 46–47).

52. Panarion 20.1.1–20.2.4 (GCS 25:224–26; NHS 63:53–54).53. Similar midrash relating the identity of the future leader of the Jews to this

verse may be the basis of Josephus’s claim that Jews thought the leader would be Jewish, while in fact this leader was Vespasian. Josephus, however, does not specify his target verse, see Wars 6.312–15.

be the “expectation of the nations,” that is, he will save the Gentiles as well, rather than only the Jews. Jesus is either fulfilling the expectations of the nations by leading the Gentiles to believe in one God,45 or by being a messiah to all, rather than only to the Jews.46

In their polemical discourse, Christian writers often mentioned and rejected other possible readings of this text.47 According to Justin Martyr, Jews claimed that Jewish leadership never ceased.48 Origen added that the Jews called these leaders patriarchs.49 Others claimed that Jews attributed these verses to other Jewish kings, such as Zerubabel50 or David and his dynasty,51 and Epiphanius describes a Jewish sect which attributed these verses to Herod.52

Tannaitic and Amoraic midrashim were also engaged with the correct identity of the leader described in the phrase, “a scepter shall not cease from Judah,” and offered two types of readings.53 In some Tannaitic and Amoraic


54. See b. Sanhedrin 5a; b. Horayot 11b; and in a Tanhuma printed as Genesis Rabbah 97.10 (Theodor and Albeck, 1219 lines 1–2). The text that is printed as chapters 95–97 of Genesis Rabbah is not originally part of this midrash but is a Tanhuma. Both chapters are absent from MSS Vatican ebr. 30, chapter 95 is absent from all genizah fragments, and chapter 96 appears in only one; see Michael Sokol-off, The Geniza Fragments of Bereshit Rabba (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Science and Humanities, 1982), 176–83 (Hebrew); Theodor and Albeck, Bereshit Rabba, 1185, notes to chapter 95; p. 1199, notes to chapter 96; and in Albeck’s “Introduc-tion,” 1:103–4 (Hebrew).

55. See Sifre Deuteronomy 352 (Louis Finkelstein, ed., Sifre on Deuteronomy [New York/Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary 1969], 411); Midrash Tannaim to Deuteronomy 33.12 (David Z. Hoffman, ed., Midrasch Tannaïm zum Deuterono-mium [Berlin: Itzkowski, 1908–9], 217); and Genesis Rabbah 97.10 (Theodor and Albeck, 1219 lines 4–6).

56. See Genesis Rabbah 98.10 (Theodor and Albeck, 1259 lines 3–4). 57. See the Tanhuma in Genesis Rabbah 97.10 (Theodor and Albeck, 1219 lines

2–4). For other messianic interpretations of Genesis 49.10, see b. Sanhedrin 98b; Lamentations Rabbah 1.51; Lamentations Rabbah (Buber) 1.45b.

58. See Genesis Rabbah 99.10 (Theodor and Albeck, 1280 lines 1–3) and in MS Oxford 147, Genesis Rabbah 97.8 (Theodor and Albeck, 1207 line 4). Tying between the words and ‘kingdom’ also appears in the Palestinian Talmud:

(priests shall not be anointed kings, said R. Yudan of Antondera/En Todraya, this is after “a scepter shall not cease from Judah”); y. Šeqalim 49d (Hebrew Academy, 624 lines 17–18) but see also y. Sot ≥ah 22c (Hebrew Academy, 939 lines 26–27) and y. Horayot 47c (Hebrew Academy, 1424 lines 41–42). It seems that the basis for R. Yudan’s claim is the assumption that this verse teaches that kings come from the tribe of Judah, rather than from other tribes, as with the priests. For the spelling of Antondera/En Todraya, see Andreas Lehnardt, Ta’aniyot—Fasten, Übersetzung des Talmud Yerushalmi II/9 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 54, 128 and notes.

59. See Genesis Rabbah 97.8 (Theodor and Albeck, 1207 line 4–1213 line 7). See also Genesis Rabbah 98.10 (Theodor and Albeck, 1258 line 11) which attributes this verse to Ma\k≥ir.

opinions, this verse refers to contemporaneous Jewish leaders, such as the Babylonian Jewish leaders,54 the sages of the Sanhedrin or their meet-ing place55 or to other contemporary Jewish leaders of Davidic descent.56 According to other midrashim, this verse refers to messianic figures, such as a messiah of a Davidic descent.57 A later Tanhuma midrash specifically states that this verse refers to kingship,58 and lists all the Jewish leaders of a Davidic dynasty until the time of Zerubabel and the future Messiah.59

* * *

Reading Ephrem’s commentary on the blessing of Judah in this context reveals his use of the Greek Christian polemic and his attempt to adapt it to his particular circumstances. Ephrem, like his predecessors and con-


60. See also Theodoret of Cyrus, Questions on the Octateuch 112.2 (Petruccione and Hill, 1:206–7), who first claims these verses refer to Judah’s tribe rather than to Judah the patriarch, later claiming this verse actually refers to Jesus.

61. For further discussion on Ephrem’s commentary on Judah’s blessing, see Taeke Jansma, “Ephraem on Genesis XLIX, 10: An Enquiry into the Syriac Text Forms as Presented in His Commentary on Genesis,” Parole de l’Orient 4 (1973): 247–56; and Feghali, “Le Messie de Juda.”

temporaries, addresses the question of Jesus’s messianic identity in his commentary on Jacob’s blessing to Judah.

Unlike with the other sections of the Commentary on Genesis, Ephrem divided his commentary on Jacob’s blessing to his sons into two parts. In the first he uses literary or factual exegesis ( su‘ra\na\’it) and ties the blessings to historical events mentioned in the Old Testament. In the second part he uses Christological exegesis ( ruha\na\’it) and ties the blessings to verses from the New Testament. This pattern changes in the commentary on Judah’s blessing, where Ephrem combines both meth-ods. He opens his discussion on Judah’s blessing by relating it to historical events in the life of Judah the patriarch and his descendant, King David,60 using the literary method. When reaching Genesis 49.10, Ephrem casts this method aside, and offers a christological exegesis of Judah’s blessing.61

According to Ephrem, Judah’s blessing refers to the eternal kingship preserved for Jesus by the tribes. The tribes descending from Jacob will maintain kingship until the advent of Jesus. In order to prove this point, Ephrem writes:

.. .

: .: .

. ..

.. .

.. .

..

.. .

.


62. CSCO 152:113–14, with corrections according to Taeke Jansma, “Beiträge zur Berichtigung einzelner Stellen in Ephraems Genesiskommentar,” OrChr 56 (1972): 59–79, 66.

.62.

And to clarify that he spoke about the crown that will be handed down from him and not about his (šabt ≥a\) he wrote the (šabt≥a\) shall not cease—that is the king, and not a revealer—that is the prophet who reveals the future things. Until he will come, not David whom the kingship extolled, but Jesus son of David who is the Lord of the kingship. A king and a prophet shall not cease from the house of Judah until he comes to whom the kingship belongs.

Oh, let them show me that there were kings before David who succeeded each other in [the tribe of] Judah and kept the crown for David. And if there was no king before David, it is clear that the kingship is passed on and kept by David and the sons of David, to the son and Lord of David who is the Lord of the kingship. And even though from that [verse] Judah, your brothers shall praise you to a (šabt ≥a\) and a revealer shall not cease the [words] are understood regarding Judah and the kingship of David and David’s sons who are from Judah, from [the verse] until he will come, he to whom it belongs and the rest that follows, are truly to be understood regarding the Son of God and not regarding David and David’s sons who are from Judah. Even in that which he said he will come, he to whom it belongs he clearly shows that all the predecessors are deputies, that is, they were passers on of a crown that is not theirs.

In this commentary Ephrem claims that Genesis 49.10 refers to the king-ship of Jesus rather than to that of David or other descendants of Judah. He proves this by raising a historical and a linguistic argument. The his-torical argument is similar to the common Christian argument: there was no continuity of rulers from the tribe of Judah prior to David, only a continuity of kings from David to Jesus. Consequently, the verse cannot be discussing the kingship’s transmission in Judah’s tribe, but rather the kingship’s transmission in the Davidic dynasty until the coming of Jesus, who is also from a Davidic dynasty. Ephrem supports this argument with the end of the verse, “he will come, he to whom [the kingship] belongs,” which, for him, refers to Jesus, not David.

Ephrem’s linguistic argument, however, is harder to comprehend. According to Ephrem, the word (šabt ≥a\) indicates that the verse refers to the transmission of kingship from David to Jesus, but to prove this, Ephrem uses the same word both for the argument and for its proof. He claims that in order to show that the prophecy does not refer to


63. Išo‘dad may have noticed this difficulty in the ninth century, and in his Com-mentary on Genesis, he cites a different version of Ephrem’s exegetical comment; see Jacques Marie Vosté and Ceslaus van den Eynde, Commentaire d’Išo’dad de Merv sur l’Ancien Testament: I. Genèse, CSCO 126 (Louvain: Durbecq, 1950), 1:215.

64. For the Hebrew, see Francis Brown, Samuel R. Driver and Charles E. Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 12th ed. (Peabody: Hendrick-son, 2008), 986, s.v. ; and Ludwig Köhler, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann J. Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1st English ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000), 1388–90, s.v. . For the development of this double meaning, see Gerhard Wilhelmi, “Der Hirt mit dem eisernen Szepter: Überlegungen zu Psalm II 9,” VT 27 (1977): 196–204; Bo Reicke and Leonhard Rost, Biblische-Historisches Handwörterbuch, 4 vols. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962–1979), 1851, 2234 and further bibliography noted there; and Menahem Z. Kaddari, A Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew (Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2006), 1046–47. The shift from using “scepter” as staff to using it as a symbol of the king-dom was also the basis for some midrashic traditions; see, for example, Genesis Rabbah 98 (Theodor and Albeck, 1258 line 11–1259 line 2).

65. In the Jewish dialects of Aramaic refers mostly to tribe; see Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period, 2nd ed. (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2002), 534, s.v. ; Sokoloff, A Diction-ary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods, 2nd ed. (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2002), 1102, s.v. .

66. For the Syriac, see Michael Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum (Winona Lake/Piscataway: Eisenbrauns/Gorgias Press, 2009), 1501, s.v. . For the use as “scepter” in Ephrem’s writings, see De Fide 21.4 (CSCO 154:77; CSCO 155:61) and 53.1 (CSCO 154:164; CSCO 155:141) and Nativity 1.17 (CSCO 186:3; CSCO 187:3). For the use as “tribe” in Ephrem’s writing, see De Fide 8.3 (CSCO 154:36; CSCO 155:26) and 86.11 (CSCO 154:265; CSCO 155:225), which shifts between both definitions.

67. Such a translation is supported by the biblical parallels of this phrase, in which it is clear that refers to ruling or authority. Job 9.34 employs this phrase in a negative form, pleading for relief from divine punishment: (“[If he would]

(šabt ≥a\), it used the word (šabt ≥a\). This is obviously senseless.63 Fur-thermore, according to Ephrem’s argument, the verse refers to a crown, a symbol of kingship, rather than to (šabt≥a\), thus indicating that

(šabt ≥a\) does not signify kingship. According to Ephrem’s proof, however, (šabt ≥a\) means “king.” So, does (šabt ≥a\) prove that this verse refers to the kingship or to something else?

The word (šabt≥a\), like the Hebrew word it translates, (še\bet≥), has two main definitions. Initially, the root š-b-t≥ meant “staff.”64 This defi-nition developed in Hebrew and the various dialects of Aramaic.65 In Syriac, (šabt ≥a\) resulted with the definitions of tribe and scepter, which may signify a ruling scepter.66 The various translations of the word

(še\bet≥) in Genesis 49.10 stress this difference even further. Some trans-lations chose a word related to ruling:67 the Septuagint, and possibly


take his scepter away from me”—as if Job has a scepter over him, which may be used for beating). 2 Sam 7.14–16 uses it in a similar way, according to Steiner, “Four Inner-Biblical Interpretations,” 44. Zech 10.11 uses it in a positive form, referring to Egypt’s kingdom: (“and Egypt’s scepter shall pass away”).

68. According to Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica 8.1.25 (GCS 23:356), Theo-dotion’s translation agrees with that of the Septuagint. Eusebius, however, does not cite Theodotion’s translation fully, nor is it preserved elsewhere.

69. This translation is also found in the Syro-Hexapla of the seventh century, after Ephrem’s time: . See Willem Baars, New Syro-Hexaplaric Texts: Edited, Commented upon and Compared with the Septuagint (Leiden: Brill, 1968), 67; and Arthur Vööbus, The Pentateuch in the Version of the Syro-Hexapla, CSCO 369 (Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1975), fol. 17b of Midyat MS.

70. The full version is preserved in Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica 8.1.34 (GCS 23:358), and discussed by Salvesen, Symmachus in the Pentateuch, 61.

71. See Alexander Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, Based on Old Manuscripts and Printed Texts (Leiden: Brill, 1962), 85; Bernard Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis, ed. Martin J. McNamara, The Aramaic Bible 6 (Wilmington: Glazier, 1988), 158; and J. W. Etheridge, The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uziel on the Pentateuch, 2 vols. (London: Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts, 1862–1865), 1:151. For further discussion on the various possible translations, see Roger Syrén, The Blessings in the Targums: A Study on the Targumic Interpretations of Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33, Acta Academiae Aboensis, Ser. A (Turku: Åbo Akademi, 1986), 53–55.

72. Abraham Tal, The Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch, 2 vols. Texts and Studies in the Hebrew Language and Related Subjects 4–5 (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv Univer-sity Press, 1980–1982), 1:210, MS J; cf. the later MS A which translates (scepter).

73. The full version is preserved in Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica 8.1.25 (GCS 23:356) and partially in 8.1.34 (GCS 23:358).

74. This duality is also reflected in the earliest interpretations of Genesis 49.10. In 4Q252.5, a commentary on Genesis from Qumran, the interpreter states:

(“a ruler shall not cease from the tribe/scepter of Judah”). According to George J. Brooke, “Some Remarks on 4Q252 and the Text of Genesis,” Textus 19 (1998): 22–23, this may be an evidence of combining two different versions, , as known from the MT, and , as known from the Septuagint. For this text, see John Marco Allegro, “Further Messianic References in Qumran Literature,” JBL 75 (1956): 174–76, who first published the fragment; Yigael Yadin, “Some Notes on Commentaries on Genesis XLIX and Isaiah, from Qumran Cave 4,” IEJ 7 (1957): 66–68; and N. Wieder, “Notes on the New Documents from the Fourth Cave of Qumran,” JJS 7 (1956): 71–76, who annotated Allegro’s text. See also George J. Brooke, “252. 4QCommentary on Genesis A,” in Qumran Cave 4: XVII Parabibli-cal Texts, Part 3, eds. George J. Brooke et al., Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 22 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 205, who published and translated the full text.

Theodotion,68 translated it as , “ruler”;69 Symmachus gave , “power of sovereignty”;70 and Onqelos , “exercises dominion.”71 Other translations preserved the duality: the Samaritan translation used the same root as the Hebrew, ,72 as did the Peshitta, giving (šabt ≥a\), and Aquila,73 who gave , “scepter.”74


For further discussion, see Daniel R. Schwartz, “The Messianic Departure from Judah (4Q Patriarchal Blessings),” Theologische Zeitschrift 37.5 (1981): 257–66; George J. Brooke, “The Deuteronomic Character of 4Q252” in Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 184, eds. John C. Reeves and John Kampen, (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 129–30; Brooke, “4Q252 et le Nouveau Testament,” in Le déchirement: Juifs et chrétiens au premier siècle, ed. Daniel Marguerat, Le monde de la Bible 32 (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1996), 221–42; Esther Eshel, “Hermeneutical Approaches to Genesis in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation, Traditio Exegetica Graeca 5, eds. Lucas van Rompay and Judith Frishman, (Louvain: Peeters, 1997), 7–8; and Curt Niccum, “The Blessing of Judah in 4Q252,” in Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, and the Septuagint Presented to Eugene Ulrich, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 101, eds. Peter W. Flint, Emanuel Tov, and James C. VanderKam (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2006), 250–60. For a discussion on the genre of this fragment, see Moshe Bernstein, “4Q252: Method and Context, Genre and Sources,” Jewish Quar-terly Review 85 (1994): 61–79; George J. Brooke, “The Thematic Content of 4Q252,” Jewish Quarterly Review 85 (1994): 33–59; and Ida Fröhlich, “Themes, Structure and Genre of Pesher Genesis: A Response to George J. Brooke,” Jewish Quarterly Review 85 (1994): 81–90. The Palestinian Targums translate in a similar way:

(“kings and rulers shall not cease from those of the house of Judah”), according to Ps. Jonathan, see Ernest G. Clarke, ed., Targum Pseudo-Jona-than of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance (Hoboken: Ktav, 1984), 62 and Michael Maher, ed., Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis, The Aramaic Bible 1B (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992), 158–59. Targum Ps. Jonathan preserves the definition of ruler ( ) and tribe ( ). A similar version is in MS Paris from the Geniza, published by Michael L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch: According to their Extant Sources, 2 vols., Analecta Biblica 76 (Rome: Biblical Insti-tute Press, 1980), 1:66 and 2:31. See also Neofiti and MS Vatican:

(“kings shall not cease from those of the house of Judah”) in Alejandro Díez Macho, Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense Ms. de la Biblioteca Vaticana, 6 vols., Seminario Filológico Cardenal Cisneros del Instituto Arias Montano Textos y Estu-dios 6 (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1968–79), 1:331; Martin McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis, The Aramaic Bible 1A (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992), 219; and Klein, Fragment-Targums, 1:158 and 2:119. The Palestinian Targums translated as (“redeemer and ruler”), in Num-bers 24.17 , see Klein, Fragment-Targums, 1:105, 1:203, 2:77 and 2:162; Díez Macho, Neophyti 1, 4:239; and Martin McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Numbers, The Aramaic Bible 4 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), 140. Onqelos and Ps. Jonathan clearly translate ; see Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, 266; Ber-nard Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Leviticus and the Targum Onqelos to Num-bers, ed. Martin J. McNamara, The Aramaic Bible 8 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988), 138; Clarke, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch, 190; and Ernest G. Clarke, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Numbers, ed. Martin J. McNamara, The Aramaic Bible 4 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), 261.

Ephrem’s argument cannot be based on either of these translations on its own. If he translated ‘ ’ (še \bet≥) as “ruler,” he could not then claim that this verse does not refer to ‘ ’ (še \bet≥), that is, ruling; if, however, he translated ‘ ’ (še \bet≥) as “tribe,” or even accepted the ambiguity


75. For the latest survey, see John Behr, The Case against Diodore and Theodore: Texts and Their Contexts, Oxford Early Christian Texts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 48–82.

76. Catenae Graecae in Genesim et in Exodum §299 (CCSG 15:274–75). For further discussion on the beginning of this paragraph, see ter Haar Romeny, Syrian in Greek Dress, 437–41.

according to which ‘ ’ (še\bet ≥) could refer to either a scepter or a tribe, he could not have then denied that this verse refers to Judah’s tribe. Only if Ephrem’s first use of the word (šabt ≥a\), refers to “tribe,” and the second refers to “ruling scepter,” or even to a ruler, is his argument clear. In that case he would be arguing that in order to prove this verse refers to continuity of the kingdom rather than to the continuity of (Judah’s) tribe, Jacob specified a “ruling scepter,” which refers to a king.

Such a reading is appealing and suits Ephrem’s historical claim, but it cannot be proven from Ephrem’s text alone, nor from claiming that Ephrem used a different version of the biblical text. The key to understanding his comment may lie, therefore, in an exegetical comment that Ephrem has not preserved fully.

In his commentary on Genesis 49.10, Diodore of Tarsus (d. ca. 390),75 inquires into the referent of this verse. Like his predecessors, he suggests that it refers to Judah’s tribe and its rulers, but ultimately rejects this read-ing since Zerubabel was the last king from this tribe. The following Jewish leaders were from other tribes, such as the Hasmoneans who were from the tribe of Levi. He therefore claims:

. . .

76

[. . .] How will the [verse] a ruler shall not cease from Judah and a leader from his loins, until comes the one to whom they are reserved be maintained, if it is not to be understood like this: from Jacob a ruling son shall not cease—that is the ruling and powerful tribe which is stronger than the others—until the Lord comes. That by ruler Moses meant that the tribe and not specific rulers from it [are described], Aquila attests by saying “scepter” rather than “ruler.” The tribe is called “scepter,” and truly the tribe of Judah continued to hold an honorary position over the others, to carry most of the time the temple and the ark and the entire service,


77. Aquila’s tendency to prefer the literal translation has been widely discussed; for an early example, see Joseph Reider, Prolegomena to a Greek-Hebrew & Hebrew Greek Index to Aquila (Philadelphia: Oxford University Press, 1916), 16–36. In his research, as in his Christian writings, Aquila is an example of exaggerated literalism; see Naomi Seidman, Faithful Renderings: Jewish-Christian Difference and the Politics of Translation, Afterlives of the Bible (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 73–114; and Giuseppe Veltri, Libraries, Translations, and ‘Canonic’ Texts: The Sep-tuagint, Aquila and Ben Sira in the Jewish and Christian Traditions, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 109 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 163–79. For further discussion on the Christian attitude to Aquila, see Jenny R. Labendz, “Aquila’s Bible Translation in Late Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Perspectives,” HTR 102 (2009): 370–86. Nevertheless, Kyösti Hyvärinen, in a thorough survey, Die Übersetzung von Aquila (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1977), has shown that though Aquila prefers literalism, this preference is mostly relevant to his vocabulary and less so to his syn-tax. Furthermore, Aquila’s translations of the words , and are inconsistent; see James Barr, “Review on J. Reider, An Index to Aquila, Completed and Revised by Nigel Turner. (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, Vol. XII) 1966. pp. 331. (E. J. Brill, Leiden),” Journal of Semitic Studies 12 (1967): 303; Barr, The Typology of Lit-eralism in Ancient Biblical Translations, Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens 15 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 312. Likewise, the attempt to sys-temize Aquila’s translation and claim that he follows Rabbi Aqiva’s exegetical methods, which Dominique Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila: Première publication intégrale du texte des fragments du Dodécaprophéton trouvés dans le désert de Juda, Supple-ments to Vetus Testamentum 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1963), 3–31 discussed, was questioned by Lester L. Grabbe, “Aquila’s Translation and Rabbinic Exegesis,” JJS 33 (1982): 527–36; and Geza Vermes, “Review of Dominique Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’Aquila: Première publication intégrale du texte des fragments du Dodécaprophéton trouvés dans le désert de Juda, précédée d’une etude sur les traductions et recensions greques de la Bible réalisées au premier siècle de notre ère sous l’influence du rabbinat pales-tinien (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, Vol. X). 1963. pp. XIV+272 (E. J. Brill, Leiden),” Journal of Semitic Studies 66 (1966): 261–64. For the latest survey and discussion, see Natalio Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 109–22; and Tessa Rajak, Translation and Survival: The Greek Bible of the Ancient Jewish Diaspora (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 290–94. For further discussion on the Jewish attitude to Aquila, see André Paul, “La Bible greque d’Aquila et l’idéologie du Judaïsme ancien,” ANRW II.20.1 (1987): 221–45.

until, disobeying the Lord, it was taken in prison by the Romans with the other [tribes].

According to Diodore, the phrase “a ruler shall not cease from Judah” refers to Judah’s tribe, the strongest of the twelve tribes. This tribe will rule all Israelites until the coming of Jesus. To prove this, Diodore points to the difference between the Septuagint’s translation and that of Aquila. The Septuagint translates (še \bet≥) as (ruler), thus referring to a specific ruler (like Judah or one of his heirs) without using a name—and indeed, there was no specific ruler or dynasty that remained in this posi-tion. Aquila translates (še \bet≥) as (scepter),77 thus referring


78. Diodore was not the first to use different biblical translations in order to claim that this verse refers to the general leadership of the tribe of Judah rather than to specific rulers. In the beginning of the fourth century, Eusebius presented a similar claim in his Demonstratio Evangelica. After surveying the Jewish kings after Judah the Patriarch, not all of whom were from the tribe of Judah, Eusebius claimed that this verse referred to the general rule of the tribe rather than specific rulers. He, how-ever, supports this claim by using Symmachus’s and Aquila’s translations and show-ing that their translations refer to the abstract concept of authority, rather than to specific kings. Eusebius does not focus on the term or its relation to , but interprets as a symbol of royal power; see Demonstratio Evangelica 8.1.33–34 (GCS 23:357–58). For the dating of the Demonstratio Evangelica, its structure and relation to the Preparatio Evangelica, see Arieh Kofsky, Eusebius of Caesarea against Paganism, Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series 3 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 74. For further discussion on this paragraph, see Kofsky, Eusebius, 155; and Kofsky, “Prophecy in the Service of Polemics in Eusebius of Caesarea,” Cristianesimo nella Storia 19 (1998): 20–28.

to a ruling tribe rather than a single ruler. Following Aquila, Diodore con-cludes that the tribe of Judah, rather than a specific ruler from this tribe, will continue to lead the Israelites until they disobey the Lord and fall to the Romans.78

This claim is based on the gap between two translations. As Diodore says, the word (scepter) translates the word (tribe). Such a claim is impossible according to the Septuagint’s (ruler), which refers only to an individual ruler, but is possible according to Aquila’s (scepter), which may refer not only to a ruling scepter but also to a tribe. On the other hand, Diodore’s claim cannot be based on Aquila’s version alone, since without the Septuagint’s version, there is no reason to ask who the ruler is, or try to bridge “ruler” and “tribe.” Moreover, this exegetical comment is clearly rooted in Greek since in Greek there is one word for “tribe” and another for “scepter.” Without two words, there would be no need to claim that in this case “scepter” refers to a tribe.

While the Greek background of this exegetical stance is clear, an attempt to translate it to Syriac will result in obscurity. In Syriac, as in Hebrew, the word for “tribe” and the word for “scepter” are one and the same—

(šabt ≥a\) in Syriac, as (še \bet≥) in Hebrew. Diodore’s claim can be simplified in this sentence: “(in order to show that this verse refers to the tribe in general), Aquila used ‘scepter’ instead of (the Septuagint’s) ‘ruler,’ he called the tribe ‘scepter.’” Had the same claim been directly translated to Syriac, it would have resulted in this sentence: “(in order to show that this verse refers to the [šabt ≥a\)] in general), Aquila used (šabt ≥a\) instead of ‘ruler,’ called the (šabt ≥a\)— (šabt ≥a\).”

This obscure sentence seems quite similar to Ephrem’s sentence discussed


79. For further discussion on this paragraph and on Ephrem’s and Diodore’s related commentary, see Hidal, Interpretatio Syriaca, 56–60; and Lucas van Rompay, “Antio-chene Biblical Interpretation: Greek and Syriac,” in The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation, ed. Lucas van Rompay and Judith Frishman, Traditio Exegetica Graeca 5 (Louvain: Peeters, 1997), 117–19.

above, “And to clarify that he said this about the crown that will be handed down from him and not about his (šabt≥a\) he wrote (šabt≥a\).” Also quite similar is the theological argument that this philological argu-ment supports regarding the ruling role of the tribe of Judah. It seems, then, that these exegetical and philological arguments are genealogically linked to one another.

If so, Diodore’s exegesis sheds light on that of Ephrem and fills a gap in its philological background. Diodore focuses on the difference between two possible translations of the word : (ruler) and (scepter) or tribe. Based on their comparison he claims that the ruler is the whole tribe of Judah. This method—the comparison and the different defi-nitions—seems to be the background to Ephrem’s claim. We may therefore try to reconstruct Ephrem’s argument as follows:

Ephrem’s sentence: “And to clarify that he said this about the crown that will be handed down from him and not about his (šabt≥a\) he wrote the (šabt ≥a\) shall not cease, that is, the king.”

The reconstruction: “And to clarify that he said this about the crown that will be handed down from him and not about his (that is, Judah’s) tribe, (since this could be interpreted in two ways) he wrote the scepter and ruler ( and ) shall not cease, that is, the king (since ‘ ’ does not always mean ‘tribe,’ but also ‘ruling scepter,’ as in this case).”79

This reconstruction, however, shows not only the similarity between Ephrem’s and Diodore’s claims, but also the differences between them. While both claims lead to the same conclusion—that the messiah described in this verse is Jesus rather than a Jewish leader—the details differ. First, even though the question of the continuity of rulers in the tribe of Judah is identical, the historical claim supporting it is not. According to Diodore, there is no continuity of rulers from the tribe of Judah after Zerubabel, while according to Ephrem there is continuity after David, but not before. Second, Diodore uses a philological argument and the duality in the word

(scepter) in order to claim that this verse refers to the tribe of Judah as a whole, rather than to specific rulers. Ephrem, however, does not accept any reading which interprets this verse as treating the tribe of Judah. He claims that the verse does not refer to the tribe at all, but rather to kingship.


The reason for these differences seems to be the different starting point of each commentator. Diodore wrote in Greek and knew the Septuagint’s translation, (ruler). He does not need to claim that this refers to kingship since that reading is clear from the Septuagint. He needs only to add that this verse refers to the tribe. Ephrem wrote in Syriac and knew the Peshitta’s translation, (šabt ≥a\). He does not need to claim that this refers to a tribe since that is clear from the Peshitta, but must rather explain how it can also refer to kingship or rule. He therefore uses the exegetical claim that moved from kingship to tribe in order to reason from tribe to kingship.

CONCLUSIONS

A comparison to contemporaneous Greek or Latin parallel commentaries has resolved the obscurities of two comments from Ephrem’s Commentary on Genesis. In both cases, the reason seems to be Ephrem’s attempt to translate a Greek exegetical comment into Syriac without fully adapting it. The Greek commentators discussed a word that in Biblical Hebrew, as in Syriac, can be translated in two ways, and addressed its double mean-ing. In the first case the Hebrew (hata\na\yw) was explained as refer-ring both to sons-in-law (generi, ) and to future sons-in-law (sponsi,

). The exegetical comment was translated but only partially adapted. Since in Syriac the word (hatne\) already means both “sons-in-law” and “future sons-in-law” and as such it cannot be translated directly, the adaptation resulted in an obscure sentence. In the second case, the Hebrew (še\bet≥) was translated according to two different biblical translations as “ruler” and “scepter,” which may refer also to a tribe, and the gap between these translations was discussed. This discussion was translated into Syriac, even though the Syriac (šabt≥a\) already refers both to scepter and to tribe and therefore cannot be directly translated.

Both cases include a linguistic and a theological aspect, thus indicating the type of conclusions which can be drawn from such a study. The lin-guistic aspect of these parallels has shown that Ephrem cited an exegeti-cal comment conceived in a Greek or Latin context, but did not translate or adapt it properly into Syriac. The theological aspect of these cases has shown that Ephrem did not select Greek exegetical comments at random, but rather used comments which were part of a vehement polemic on the key principles of Christian belief, the virgin birth and the identity of the Messiah. The polemic over these issues was widespread and was attested in Greek Christian writings from the eastern Roman Empire, writings that Ephrem may have known.


80. For several related examples, see Edmund Beck, “Ephräms Rede gegen eine Philosophische Schrift des Bardaisan,” OrChr 60 (1976): 67–68; Hidal, Interpretatio Syriaca, 16–17; Possekel, Evidence of Greek, 52–53; and Menahem Kister, “The Tree of Life and the Turning Sword: Jewish Biblical Interpretation, Symbols, and Theologi-cal Patterns and Their Christian Counterparts,” in Paradise in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Views, eds. Markus N. A. Bockmuehl and Guy G. Stroumsa (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 150–52.

Two conclusions regarding Ephrem’s ties with Greek Christian biblical commentary may be drawn from this study, but both should be tentative. First, these two cases do not indicate that Ephrem knew Greek. His inad-equate translation may actually indicate the opposite: Ephrem did not prop-erly translate these Greek exegetical comments because of his likely unfa-miliarity, or at least his insufficient familiarity, with Greek. Second, their extreme theological importance does not necessarily indicate that Ephrem was fully acquainted with Greek Christian literature but indeed the con-trary, that he may have known only the widespread Christian apologetic.

Nevertheless, Ephrem’s acquaintance with an exegetical comment of great theological significance does show his deep commitment to post-Nicene Christian theology. Addressing exegetical questions related to the core subjects of Christian identity, Ephrem used polemical arguments rooted in Greek Christian theology. He identified himself as a post-Nicene Christian in the Roman Empire, accepted widespread Christian polemi-cal stances, and adapted them into Syriac. That, however, is not the full story. Ephrem’s adaptations also reveal the linguistic gap between him and contemporary Greek Christian theologians, and the deep influence of his Syrian and Eastern background. This influence is preserved in a hidden layer of Ephrem’s writing, in topics that do not address the core issues of his Christian identity, yet significantly impact his writing. In other words, Ephrem may have known and accepted the basic, common claims of Greek Christian theology, but not necessarily the language and its full cultural background.

It should be noted, finally, that these are merely two examples. While it is tempting to deduce from them that Ephrem knew no Greek, at this stage such a conclusion is only a hypothesis. The importance of these examples is rather their ability to highlight the usefulness of philology in identifying exact comparisons with Greek parallels, rather than repeating generalized assumptions from established research. Only further examples of Ephrem citing, yet mistranslating Greek exegesis will confirm the assumption that Ephrem did not know Greek but was well enough acquainted with post-Nicene Greek Christian theology.80


This comparative discussion has reemphasized the importance of study-ing Ephrem’s biblical commentary in light of Greek biblical exegesis, yet has also revealed the unique treatment these commentaries received in their transition into Syriac. As such, the present study has sought to nuance the critical understanding of Ephrem grasp of both Greek language and Greek culture. Further examples may strengthen these conclusions, and nuance the understanding of the roots of Syriac Christianity.

Yifat Monnickendam is a postdoctoral fellow at the Martin Buber Society of Fellows at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem