A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark. Ezra P. Gould

George T. Purves
1897 The American Journal of Theology  
gladly believe in a time when there were no Kurds, but evidence is against such an opinion. On p. 66 we are told that in an interesting note Dr. Lamy says this opinion [of the deconsecration of Judas' eucharist] was peculiar to S. Ephraem. Dr. Lamy goes on to quote from Bar Hebraeus the statement that Mar Ephraem and Mar Jacob held this view. So it can hardly have been peculiar in the sense that Dr. Hill implies. The Syrian church seems to have discussed the question not a little; of course
more » ... ttle; of course Ephraem may have set them at it. When the question of the character of Tatian's text comes up, Dr. Hill wisely admits that the Diatessaron may have undergone some changes between the time of Tatian and that of Ephraem. Still he clings too closely to the belief that Tatian harmonized our existing gospels without apocryphal additions. PROFESSOR GOULD'S Commentary on St. Mark professes to be distinctly critical. It belongs to the series of critical commentaries now gladly believe in a time when there were no Kurds, but evidence is against such an opinion. On p. 66 we are told that in an interesting note Dr. Lamy says this opinion [of the deconsecration of Judas' eucharist] was peculiar to S. Ephraem. Dr. Lamy goes on to quote from Bar Hebraeus the statement that Mar Ephraem and Mar Jacob held this view. So it can hardly have been peculiar in the sense that Dr. Hill implies. The Syrian church seems to have discussed the question not a little; of course Ephraem may have set them at it. When the question of the character of Tatian's text comes up, Dr. Hill wisely admits that the Diatessaron may have undergone some changes between the time of Tatian and that of Ephraem. Still he clings too closely to the belief that Tatian harmonized our existing gospels without apocryphal additions.
doi:10.1086/476568 fatcat:c5fub4cowrafjccdrvwvoiazpm