This library is built in the open.
If you spot an error, have a suggestion, or just want to say hello — we’d love to hear from you.

The proof of Bar-Kepha’s acquaintance with the Ephrem commentary is, as we have said, (i) direct, for in discussing the question whether Judas partook of the Eucharist or not, he gives Ephrem’s opinion as to the washing off the sanctification of the bread by dipping it in water; and says it is from his Exposition of the Gospel; (ii) there is an indirect proof of his dependence in his imitation of the opening sentences of Ephrem, as will be seen by a reference to our collection of extracts at p. 24. Bar-Kepha also, in his introductory chapters, appears to be the source of Bar-Ṣalibi, and the references to the Diatessaron are, therefore, important for himself and for later writers. It will be found that he carefully distinguishes Tatian’s Diatessaron from that of Ammonius.
Amongst the works to which Bar-Kepha refers, there is one which seems to be older than Ephrem, and to have been used by him, and which may perhaps be of great antiquity. The reader of Ephrem will have observed that there is often a strain of interpretation which consists in a very simple allegorisation of the Gospel and its contained parables. Such glosses as (Mös. p. 166) occur in the interpretation of the Planting of the Vineyard,
and those which we have quoted from p. 192, seem to belong to a simpler and more archaic hand than that of Ephrem, and they occur in all the commentators.
Bar-Kepha says expressly in one place that these very elementary comments come from a book which he calls
or the Succinct Exposition of Matthew.
It is, as we have said, quite possible that we have here the traces of some very early document. At all events nothing could be more simple or childlike than the commentary which Bar-Kepha quotes, and to which other commentators evidently allude.
Of Isho‘dad nothing has been published beyond a few references by my American friends Dr Hall and Prof. Gottheil; the copy from which I have worked is Cod. Add. 1973 in the Cambridge University Library: and it is from this source that most