Symbolic Interpretations in Ethiopic and Early Syriac Literature is a revision of Ralph Lee's 2011 doctoral thesis from London's School of Oriental and African Studies, written under the supervision of Dr. Erica Hunter. As the title suggests, this study is a comparison of symbolic motifs in both Ethiopic and early Syriac Christianity. In consequence, Lee challenges the notion, held by Ullendorff and others, that Ethiopic symbols such as the Ark (tabot) are Jewish in origin. Instead, Lee proposes influences from what he calls “Judeo-Christianity” (following Jean Daniélou). Shared motifs, Lee argues, are evidence of early interactions and “shared parallel thought-worlds” (xiii) between these two strands of eastern Christianity.
Lee's study is organized into six chapters: the first two orient the reader to the relevant literature; the following three chapters are the heart of Lee's work, presenting highly-detailed studies of the ark, the cross, and paradise in both traditions; the final chapter ties these threads together and proposes further directions for research. The appendices include translations of seven Ethiopic works to which Lee has referred in the previous chapters. It was an excellent idea to include these sometimes-lengthy translations, as they help the reader to see how Lee's arguments in chapters 3–5 play out in the fuller text. Although an index to biblical citations and authors has been included, regrettably there are no subject/keyword indices.
Lee's work is timely. Over the last decade, a number of scholars have probed into possible interactions between Syriac and Ethiopic Christianity, including Aaron Butts (2011, 2014), Theresia Hainthaler (2016), Alexej Muravjev (2015), Harald Suermann (2016), Irfan Shahîd (2016), Witold Witakowski (2010), and others. Lee sees the distinctness of his study in its “theological” focus (80), an attempt to place key symbols in Ethiopic literature against the backdrop of early Syriac ideas about ecclesiology and divine immanence. He builds evidence for these early influences, even while dealing with the complications posed by “later revisions and the paucity of Ethiopic manuscripts before the thirteenth century CE” (XIII).
Given the complexity and potential ambiguity of this type of project, Lee was wise to narrow his comparison to only three symbols: the ark, the cross, and paradise. He likewise confines himself to a limited number of works: for Ethiopic, the Deggwa, Kəbrä Nägäśt, and andəmta; for Syriac, mainly the works of Ephrem, Jacob of Sarugh, and the Odes of Solomon. Lee lucidly illustrates how these three symbols are interwoven throughout these works, leading him to conclude that there is evidence of a “deep imprint” of the Syriac tradition in Ethiopic literature, or what he calls in the final chapter “an intellectual symbiosis” (218). A genuine strength of this work is that the author has the integrity to allow for differences as well as similarities (216). He admits that “the traditions are not simple copies of each other” (212) and even Ethiopic interpretations may have developed along different trajectories (117, 157). When direct comparisons cannot be made between authors, Lee admits as much (97, 105).
While Lee is to be commended for his attempt to narrow his focus, this constricted view makes it sometimes hard to “see the forest for the trees.” Though this is a study of symbols, not once does he discuss the complex semantics behind Syriac words such as ܪܐܙܐ rāzā (“symbol”/”mystery”) or ܛܘܦܣܐ ṭupsā (“type”/”figure”); English translations are always used, which mask such distinctions (see, for example, 145 and 198). Likewise, because Lee is approaching Syriac literature by means of the Ethiopic, it is often difficult for the reader to grasp the full symbolic worlds of Ephrem and Jacob, something Lee recognizes in his conclusions (221). Furthermore, given the nature of this comparative study, more details about the reception of the works of Ephrem and Jacob in Ethiopic, even in late manuscripts, would have been helpful.
Tracing the sources of biblical interpretation in early Christianity is complex and is made even more difficult when Ethiopic manuscripts are fairly late. Some of the interpretations Lee conveniently labels as “West-Syrian” or “East-Syrian” might actually derive from pre-Chalcedonian or Greek sources. Sometimes Lee proposes features that “differentiate Ethiopic and early Syriac material” (155-–56) from other Christian traditions, though similar interpretations are likewise familiar to writers located far from Ethiopia, such as Caesarius of Arles (Sermon 84.5; Fathers of the Church 47:18–19). Moreover, some of Lee's conjectures are brilliant yet largely unsubstantiated, such as the idea that Ephrem was influenced in his exegesis by the LXX (90) and that it was Ephrem's view of Paradise that may have inspired the round shape of Ethiopic churches (212).
There are a number of typos and misspellings, including basic words, such as “suggestiong” (57), “appliction” (20), “Eprhem's” (71), “Inn” instead of “in” (212), among others. Even a major heading is misspelled: “Throne of Godt” (178). More significant are the errors in Syriac. Among many examples, twice the word ܩܝܣܐ (“wood”) becomes ܐܣܝܩ (119 and 129); “Holy of Holies” appears as ܩܘܕܫܐ ܩܕܘܫ instead of ܩܕܘܫ ܩܘܕܫܐ (186); and “God” has been vocalized as “ܐܳܠܰܗܳܐ” instead of ܐܰܠܳܗܳܐ (179 fn.145). While there is a Table of Transcriptions for Ge‘ez and Amharic, there is none for Syriac, resulting in many inconsistencies: ܡܰܩܕܫܳܐ as maqdəšā and məqdəšā, both on the same page (185); ܩܺܐܒܽܘܬܳܐ as qibutā, qibūtā, and qibuṭā, all again on the same page (90).
Despite these issues in the Syriac text, Lee demonstrates a remarkable mastery of Ethiopic literature. In short, this is an insightful and engaging study. Although it is well known that Ethiopia was not cut off from the outside world, it has not always been clear how the outside world impacted Ethiopic Christianity. Lee's work fills an important niche in this scholarship. While forced to work with a limited number of early manuscripts, Lee's commitment to detail-oriented work in both Syriac and Ge‘ez is commendable. As Lee makes clear in the conclusion, his study is a beginning, not an end.
