Abstract
The book sets out to defend Ephrem against the charge of “anti-Judaism.” Narinskaya undertakes this by comparing Ephrem’s exegetical and hermeneutical strategies to those found in rabbinic writings. On the basis of these parallels, she concludes that Ephrem’s use of rabbinic methods shows he was not, in her words, “anti-Judaic.” The conclusion is based on the fallacy that a Christian author whose understanding of Scripture has features in common with Jewish exegesis cannot be considered anti-Judaic.
N. cites Ephrem’s wording of Peshitta Exodus 19:5–6 to show his positive use of Jewish Scripture. The conclusion rests on the assumption that the text of the Peshitta was fixed by the fourth century. N. then argues that a comparison of the treatment of the same text by Ephrem and Theodoret demonstrates Ephrem’s reliance on Jewish tradition and Theodoret’s indifference to it. Basing conclusions on texts placed side by side without the benefit of accompanying argument or explanation is a major methodological weakness throughout this text.
Better familiarity with current scholarship might have been helpful to N.’s purpose. For example, Yifat Monnickendam has shown a level of Jewish influence on Ephrem’s thought that suggests sustained dialogue with rabbinic tradition, and Sidney Griffith has argued that Ephrem saw himself in continuity with Scripture’s prophetic rebuke of Israel.
Jews and Christians in Mesopotamia shared a culture, language, and ethnicity that linked them long after they parted ways in the Greek-speaking West. Despite (or because of) this shared past, deep antagonisms persisted between two communities who were simultaneously brothers, neighbors, and bitter rivals. It was inevitable that contentiousness would veer into excess, and Ephrem contributed to the acrimony. However, the very serious allegation of anti-Jewishness requires a more comprehensive and nuanced defense than it receives here.