2004
DOI: 10.2143/jecs.56.1.578698
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A View on the Integrity of the Syriac Commentary on the Diatessaron

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
1
1
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although later tradition will suggest that Ephrem wrote commentaries on most books of the Bible, only his commentaries on Genesis and Exodus have been preserved today in Syriac. In addition, part of a commentary on the Diatessaron is ascribed to him, although it now appears that this work may have been written in part by Ephrem's disciples (Lange 2005). Other commentaries attributed to Ephrem are preserved only in Armenian, including one on the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline epistles, although there are questions about the genuineness of these texts.…”
Section: The Second To Fourth Centuriesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although later tradition will suggest that Ephrem wrote commentaries on most books of the Bible, only his commentaries on Genesis and Exodus have been preserved today in Syriac. In addition, part of a commentary on the Diatessaron is ascribed to him, although it now appears that this work may have been written in part by Ephrem's disciples (Lange 2005). Other commentaries attributed to Ephrem are preserved only in Armenian, including one on the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline epistles, although there are questions about the genuineness of these texts.…”
Section: The Second To Fourth Centuriesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A Syriac manuscript of this commentary was discovered in 1957, with many missing pages being added in the following decades (McCarthy 1993). Since the original text of the Diatessaron is impossible to reconstruct, this is a very important witness, although recently doubts have been raised as to the commentary's authorship (Lange 2005). The Diatessaron's relationship to other biblical texts is also a contested issue.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%