Moshe bar Kepha’s Commentary on Luke: A Ninth Century Apology

Moshe bar Kepha’s Commentary on Luke: A Ninth Century ApologySyriaca.org: The Syriac Reference PortalThe National Endowment for the HumanitiesThe International Balzan Prize FoundationDavid A. Michelsoncbsc_adminRecord added to Zotero bycbsc_adminSyriaca.org: The Syriac Reference Portalhttp://syriaca.org/cbss/4C7Y2HYR/tei

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

2024-08-15-04:00

Born digital.

CREATED: This bibl record was autogenerated from a Zotero record.Abdul-MassihSaadiMoshe bar Kepha’s Commentary on Luke: A Ninth Century Apologyhttp://syriaca.org/cbss/4C7Y2HYRhttps://www.zotero.org/groups/a_comprehensive_bibliography_on_syriac_studies/items/4C7Y2HYRhttps://www.zotero.org/groups/4861694/items/4C7Y2HYR1999Moshe bar Kepha not only makes an apology for the Christian communities, but he also attempts to claim the Syriac Semitic exegesis as a common ground among the various Syriac communities. Thus, he used the Syriac sources extensively beginning from Ephrem and Aphrahaat, whom are considered by all Christian communities as a common root for their teaching, and he continues through the selected writings from both traditions. Through the reading of the text, it is noteworthy that MbK intentionally avoids using the controversial, dogmatic watchwords, but rather explaining them in a way, which most thought to be acceptable by all Christian groups. Moreover, MbK criticized the Greek exegetes of the East Syriac tradition, namely Theodore of Mopsustia, on certain notions, which other East Syriac writers also do. Likewise, he does not spare exegetes from his own tradition from criticism on various issues. But most noticeably, MbK ignores the exegesis of Cyril of Alexandria, namely, Cyril's Commentary on Luke, though it was translated into Syriac. MbK's Commentary reintroduces the Syriac communities its own exegetical and spiritual literature in an illuminating and inspiring way. It would be for the first time after more than seven centuries that the communities would have access to their own legacy. As MbK's Commentary enhanced the credibility of the Christian faith, spirituality and heritage, likewise, it is the responsibility of the communities today to assume that role in this new and challenging world. As for Syriac Studies scholarship, the Commentary will respond to many awaited questions, but with that it will also open further areas for research. In addition to the valuable work of MbK by itself, some scholars will finally find their answer to question, how much did MbK impact the later East and West Syriac exegetes? And to what extent does MbK use and incorporate the earlier sources? For example, J. Sanders questions and speculates on the impact on the later East Syriac (Nestorian) exegete, Ibn at-Tayyab; similarly, G. Reinink argues that MbK uses the East Syriac exegete Mar Aba (d. 751), and he speculates the possibility of retrieving more of Mar Aba's lost work. In the section of The Sources of MbK's Commentary on Luke, the exegetical works of Ephrem (d. 373), Philoxenus of Mabbug (d. 523), Išodad of Merv (c 850) and Dionysisu Bar Salibi (d. 1177) were studied in relation to MbK's Commentary on Luke. (Abstract shortened by UMI.) Saadi, Abdul-Massih. “Moshe Bar Kepha’s Commentary on Luke: A Ninth Century Apology.” Ph.D. dissertation, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, 1999. Abdul-Massih Saadi, Moshe Bar Kepha’s Commentary on Luke: A Ninth Century Apology (Ph.D. dissertation, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, 1999).Dionysius bar SalibhiEphremGospel of LukeGospelsIX CEIshodad of MervJacobitesMoses bar KephaMuslim-Christian relationsNew TestamentPhiloxenus of MabbugVII-XVIII CEapologeticscommentaryexegesisprimary sources [Syriac] + English translation