Like many figures in history, there is much discussion about the “historical Ephrem.” One trend in contemporary scholarship is to investigate the tradition of works attributed to or written about significant figures according to modern methods developed recently, relatively speaking. St Ephrem is an important saint who is recognized as a Doctor of the Church and one of the key figures of Eastern Catholicism, particularly the Syriac tradition. Taking into account modern scholarship, I would make a distinction between three broad categories of how scholars view works attributed to him. These categories are the undisputed Ephrem, the disputed Ephrem, and the pseudepigraphal Ephrem.
Historically, it is understood that Ephrem lived in Nisibis and Edessa. He was a fourth-century deacon, poet, exegete, and defender of Nicene faith. This much is widely accepted by scholars, with those who disagree being in the minority. Then there is a second category of sources that contain works that are considered borderland Ephrem: texts transmitted in Syriac, Greek, Armenian, Latin, and other languages. One theory proposed by scholars is that they may preserve genuine Ephremic material, but within a later tradition or works close enough to Ephrem’s idiom that they remain difficult to classify. The third category is the “Pseudo-Ephrem” of later apocalyptic, ascetical, and liturgical tradition: works that scholars assume were not composed by the historical deacon of Edessa but nevertheless handed down under his name.
These assumptions of scholars are based on a method that is recent in its origins. This method is called historical criticism. Historical criticism arose from several streams: Renaissance philology, Reformation debates over Scripture and tradition, Enlightenment rationalism, and the modern desire to study religious texts as historical artifacts. Edgar Krentz notes that Renaissance humanists such as Erasmus, Cajetan, and John Colet interpreted the Bible with methods used on other ancient literature, seeking the literal sense and giving impulse to historical understanding.7 Krentz also identifies Richard Simon, the seventeenth-century French Oratorian, as a direct founder of historical-critical biblical study through his application of this critical method to Scripture.
While we can acknowledge that this method is not totally depraved but has genuine benefits to help us deepen our understanding of historical texts, we must also recognize that historical criticism also developed within modernity’s turn toward suspicion. The Cambridge summary of historical-critical methods notes that Enlightenment writers such as Spinoza and the English Deists provided another impetus to biblical criticism.8 With this came a tendency to read sacred texts under the same constraints as any other ancient document, often bracketing divine inspiration, prophecy, miracle, and ecclesial tradition.
The classic modern formulation appears in Ernst Troeltsch’s principles of criticism.9 Alvin Plantinga summarizes the Troeltschian position: historical inquiry yields only probability and that past events are judged by analogy with present experience.10 The assumption being that supernatural events no longer happen or can be explained by empirical scientific methods. Again, at a modest level, these principles are not absurd. Historians should be cautious and the past is not available to us with mathematical certainty. The fundamental problem is the denial of the supernatural.
Their assumptions lead to the conclusion that God cannot interrupt the laws of nature and time and space and act in history. The principle of criticism can quietly become a permanent suspicion of tradition, authority, and that which is beyond rational explanation. What began as a discipline of humility becomes a closed system. This affected biblical studies first, but eventually all patristic and Syriac studies inherited similar habits. Texts were sorted, divided, dated, reconstructed, and often purified of later reception. The result was that a significant portion of the works attributed to Ephrem were called into question and ultimately considered not having their origin in him.
I don’t think I have the time or space in this essay to deconstruct this modern system of approaching St. Ephrem, but I simply want to suggest that we look at all three categories, and that perhaps this arrives at a very different view of who this saint was.
I. The Undisputed Ephrem: Poet of the Hidden God
The first category contains all those works that are considered authentic. Born in the early fourth century, associated first with Nisibis and then Edessa, Ephrem wrote in Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic, and became one of the greatest poets of Christian antiquity. Jeffrey Wickes notes that Ephrem’s authentic writings reveal not a withdrawn desert recluse but a public teacher deeply involved in the theological and ecclesial life of his cities. They show a man engaged with the controversies, liturgical rhythms, and symbolic world of his people.1
Based on these works, there is an assumption that Ephrem was not a systematic theologian in the later scholastic sense. These works do not contain structured arguments built on definitions, divisions, and syllogisms. Instead, they contain a rich tapestry of symbol. These works have complex imagery and contain many poetic paradoxes, and are generally considered a beautiful example of the Semitic and Catholic imagination.
In the Hymns on Faith, Ephrem says that no one has seen the Hidden One except “the Child of the Hidden One,” through whom “the Being which is unseen” is seen.3 This is considered classic Ephrem: not an abstract Christological proposition merely stated, but a symbolic theology of visibility and invisibility. Christ is the visible radiance of the invisible Father. The Son makes the Hidden One known, but without abolishing the mystery. Revelation is not the destruction of mystery; revelation is mystery made luminous.
This is why Ephrem is so important for the modern Church. We live in a time that has reduced truth either to propositions or to experiences. Ephrem refuses the binary. Doctrine is not less than proposition, but it is more. Ephrem gives us doctrine as sung contemplation. He does not merely tell us that Christ is God and man; he places us before the blazing paradox of the Word who bends down into human language, human flesh, and human history.
In the Hymns on Paradise, translated by Sebastian Brock, Ephrem treats Eden not merely as a lost location but as a symbolic world where creation, Scripture, liturgy, and eschatology interpenetrate.2 Brock’s edition presents the Hymns on Paradise together with a section of Ephrem’s Commentary on Genesis, already showing that for Ephrem exegesis and poetry are not opposed. His use of symbolism is evocative of St. Dionysius the Areopagite’s presentation in the Celestial Hierarchy and the Divine Names, but not as a theory—rather as a genuine work of beauty.
Thus the undisputed Ephrem is the poet of the sacramental cosmos. He is the master of paradox. He is the theologian of the veil. He teaches that God gives real knowledge, but he also teaches reverent restraint. When theology becomes presumptuous, it ceases to be theology and becomes an attempt to seize God. Ephrem’s method is humility before mystery.
II. The Disputed Ephrem: Tradition as Living Voice
The second Ephrem is the disputed Ephrem. An example of scholarly thinking about this body of work can be seen in Andrew Palmer’s essay on Ephrem.4 He argues that influence is especially important because he observes that restricting Ephrem’s influence to “undiluted, authentic works” would fail to do justice to the impact of his example. He says that we must analyze the vast corpus that goes under Ephrem’s name. Palmer also notes that different cultures constructed pictures of Ephrem “according to [their] own lights.” I am not sure I agree with that position, but it gives us a sense of what many scholars believe.
The Greek Ephrem corpus, often called Ephraem Graecus, is particularly revealing.5 The corpus includes homilies on the Transfiguration, the Second Coming, Resurrection, Penitence, Grace, the Antichrist, the Cross, the tongue, the sinful woman, Jonah, and the repentance of Nineveh. If we consider these works in our understanding of what St. Ephrem taught and believed, we see that his theological imagination perhaps was larger than scholars believe and could have potentially influenced future developments. It suggests that he may have been a more significant figure than is currently believed.
III. The Pseudepigraphal Ephrem: The Prophet in the Storm of History
The third Ephrem is the pseudepigraphal Ephrem. Modern scholarship often treats pseudepigraphy as false attribution. The most significant work in this category is the Syriac Apocalypse of Pseudo-Ephrem. It is called into question because scholars believe it reflects later apocalyptic concerns, including wars and imperial collapse. Likewise, it contains references to Gog and Magog, the Antichrist, and the emergence of the people of Hagar. The Syriac text, edited by Edmund Beck, is available in an English translation by John C. Reeves.6
The text opens with a prayer to the Son who humbled himself, became man, and died on Golgotha, asking for the ability to speak about the struggles that will occur in creation. This opening is deeply Ephremic in tone: Christological descent, cosmic struggle, poetic address, and the sense that history must be interpreted through the Cross. The text then speaks of nations destroying one another, iniquity increasing throughout creation, righteous rulers perishing, lawless ones arising, and the elect being weighed in judgment.
Later, the text describes a people emerging from the wilderness, “the progeny of Hagar,” connected to Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar. Whether one dates the text before, during, or after the Arab conquests, the literary form is unmistakably prophetic-apocalyptic. It contains a view of history that is not merely a sequence of political causes, but rather a theater of divine providence. Now here is where historical criticism becomes uncomfortable. If prophecy is impossible, then apocalyptic texts must always be explained as vaticinium ex eventu, prophecy after the fact. If the supernatural is excluded in advance, then the critic must explain prophetic form as literary fiction.
It goes without saying that a Catholic view does believe in the possibility of prophecy.
IV. Conclusion
My desire is that the next generations will use the tools of modernity to call into question the assumptions of modernity. To, in a manner of speaking, deconstruct the deconstruction. While the methods used by the historical-critical method are of some benefit, we ought to call into question their assumptions, particularly their denial of the supernatural and the prophetic. With this project in mind, St. Ephrem may perhaps be a larger and more important figure to the early Church than is currently appreciated.
—
Endnotes
1. Jeffrey Wickes, introduction to St. Ephrem the Syrian: The Hymns on Faith, trans. Jeffrey Wickes, Fathers of the Church 130 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2015).
2. Sebastian Brock, trans., St. Ephrem the Syrian: Hymns on Paradise (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1990).
3. Ephrem the Syrian, Hymns on Faith 5–6, 31–32, 52, 63, trans. Wickes (see n. 1 above).
4. Andrew Palmer, “The Influence of Ephraim the Syrian,” Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 2, no. 1 (1999): 83–109.
5. For a catalogue and digitized access to homilies attributed to Ephraem Graecus, see Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute, Syri.ac, https://syri.ac (accessed April 23, 2026). For scholarly discussion of the Greek corpus, see Sebastian P. Brock, “The Transmission of Ephrem’s Madroshe in the Byzantine World,” Studia Patristica 33 (1997): 490–505.
6. The Syriac text is edited in Edmund Beck, ed., Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Sermones III, CSCO 320, Scriptores Syri 139 (Louvain: Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1972), 60–71 (Syriac text); Beck’s German translation appears in the companion volume, CSCO 321 (pp. 79–94). An English translation by John C. Reeves is available at: “Pseudo-Ephrem (Syriac),” in Trajectories in Near Eastern Apocalyptic, University of North Carolina Charlotte, Department of Religious Studies, http://pages.charlotte.edu/john-reeves/research-projects/trajectories-in-near-eastern-apocalyptic/pseudo-ephrem-syriac/ (accessed April 23, 2026). The editio princeps is Thomas Josephus Lamy, ed., Sancti Ephraem Syri Hymni et Sermones, 4 vols. (Mechliniae: H. Dessain, 1882–1902), 3:187–212.
7. Edgar Krentz, The Historical-Critical Method (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975).
8. John J. Collins, “Historical-Critical Methods,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, ed. Stephen B. Chapman and Marvin A. Sweeney (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016).
9. Ernst Troeltsch, “Über historische und dogmatische Methode in der Theologie,” in Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 2 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1913), 729–753.
10. Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 374–421.