Theodoret, Commentator on the Psalms

THEODORET, COMMENTATOR ON THE PSALMS

At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, Theodoret was formally reinstated as bishop of Cyrus following deposition by the Robber Synod of Ephesus in 449, an assembly declared null and void by Pope Leo I the following year. In that year 451 Theodoret wrote to “the monks of Constantinople” a letter in which he claims authorship of thirty five works1 – a remarkable achievement for someone who for the same number of years, before retirement in 458, was bishop of a diocese with over 800 parishes in his care, and who was credited also with its civic improvement and social welfare2. In an earlier letter, dated on internal evidence December 448, Theodoret, better known to later ages for his dogmatic and controversial treatises, apologetic and historical works, claims also to have commented on “all the prophets, the psalter, and the apostle”3. For a busy pastor, that is clearly an imposing exegetical output, con- centrating on the Old Testament, no mention being made of any commentary on the Gospels, and that on the fourteen Pauline epistles being left possibly till last. Most of the Old Testament, the exception being Wisdom Books, came in for comment – Pentateuch, Historical Books and Prophets, as well as the Song of Songs – whether in full commentary or, owing to failing health, in a series of Quaestiones. Theodoret tells us in its preface that he would like to have begun his exegetical works with that Commentary on the Psalter as an appropriate firstfruits, partly because of the exalted nature of the material, partly perhaps because of the pride of place such an opus occupied among the works of other Fathers, including fellow Antiochenes Theodore of Mopsuestia and – to judge from textual evidence of youthful inexperience – possibly John Chrysostom4. But to his regret he was not free to indulge his preference5:

It would have been a pleasure for me to do a commentary on the inspired composition of the mighty David prior to the other divine sayings ... But we were prevented from putting this desire into effect by those who requested from us commentaries on other divine Scriptures: some required of us clar- ification of the Song of Songs, others were passionate about having a close

1. Ep. 146: Y. AZÉMA (ed.), Théodoret de Cyr. Correspondance, III (SC, 111), p. 176. 2. F. YOUNG, From Nicaea to Chalcedon, Philadelphia, Fortress, 1983, p. 267, while conceding this degree of pastoral responsibility, speaks of Cyrus as a “little backwater”. 3. Ep. 82: Correspondance, II (SC, 98), p. 202. 4. For such evidence, see my Chrysostom's Commentary on the Psalms: Homilies or Tracts? in P. ALLEN et al. (eds.), Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church, Brisbane, Australian Catholic University, 1998, pp. 301-317. 5. PG 80, 857A, 860A-B, “the man of passion” being a title used of Daniel on the basis of Dn 9,23, and Theodoret playing on the biblical term. THEODORET, COMMENTATOR ON THE PSALMS 89

knowledge of the inspired composition of the man of passion, still others of the work of the divinely-inspired Ezekiel, while others were impatient for the predictions of the Twelve Prophets, shrouded in obscurity, to be rendered clear and obvious.

In fact, it was not until the years immediately preceding his deposition that he was able to satisfy his desire and sense of duty by commenting on “the spiritual harmonies of the divinely inspired David (which) many people frequently call to mind”6. We have seen above that Letter 82 written in the year 448 speaks of the Psalms Commentary as already completed. That it was in process after events of 434 and 441, when the region was under attack from Huns and Persians respectively, is clear from the commentary on Ps 18,12-14 about the Lord's acting from heaven to scatter enemies7:

This often happened in our time, too: in the wars that recently occurred he laid waste with hail and fire the savages from the north attacking us. And the Persians making war on us from the east, who expected to get possession of our cities without bloodshed, he caught in these snares and prevented their further advance.

THE COMMENTATOR AS TEACHER

An opportunity could be found for the work between the military incursions from Persia, on the one hand, and the ecclesiastical turmoil of latrocinium and Chalcedonian council, on the other. Once the latter made his life more tumultuous, he might have found it a luxury to set about a commentary on this demanding work at such length (that seems to put it beyond the reach of modern readers, to judge from the paucity of critical comment on the work beyond its preface and from lack of a translation in modern languages)8. From another point of view, the delay in achieving his initial goal means that in the Psalms Commentary we now have, as Marie-Josèphe Rondeau remarks, “l'œuvre classique of a bishop who regales his people with the knowledge to which he himself has access”9. At all events, circumstances allowed the bishop of Cyrus to set himself the admirable goal of making the hymns of the Church's

6. PG 80, 860A. 7. PG 80, 977B. It is more helpful to cite psalms and verses in the numbering of the Hebrew and modern versions than of Theodoret's Septuagint. 8. My translation of the Commentary into English is due to appear in the “Fathers of the Church” series nos. 101-102, Washington DC, The Catholic University of America Press, in 2000. 9. Les commentaires patristiques du Psautier (IIIe-Ve siècles). I. Les travaux des pères grecs et latins sur le Psautier. Recherches et bilan (OCA, 219), Roma, Pont. Inst. Stud. Or., 1982, p. 137. 90 R.C. HILL liturgy more comprehensible and therefore spiritually rewarding, as he says in the preface10:

I wanted to do a commentary on this piece of inspired composition first of all, and offer to discerning investors the profit lying hidden in its depths, so that they might sing its melodies and at the same time recognise the sense of the words they sing, thus reaping a double dividend.

For whom does Theodoret intend to expose “the profit lying hidden in the depths” of the Psalms? Not primarily for the learned; he can (like Chrysos- tom) speak somewhat disparagingly of “the scholars” (filoma‡eív), and leave detailed comment on some verses to them, as in his commentary on Ps 37,32-33; 68,35; 69,4. In the preface he speaks generally of “students of religion” as devotees of the Psalmist, acknowledging in particular “those who embrace religious life and recite (the Psalter) at night and in the middle of the day”. These religious, like the community at nearby Apamea with whom he spent some of his early life and later found residence when deposed from his bishopric, earn his commendation as “those who embrace the angelic life ... acting as ambassadors for human beings” (commentary on Ps 72), and again (on Ps 84) as “those embracing the ascetical life (who) proceed from prayer to hymnsinging, from hymnsinging to supplication, and from there to reading of the divine sayings, from there to exhorting and advising the less perfect”. Only occasionally do the clergy come in for mention, honorably (“The priestly order acts like the Church's countenance in being invested with greater spiritual dignity”, he remarks on Ps 45) – though he qualifies that with the comment on Ps 34 that, unlike the old covenant, “no longer is the divine nourishment reserved to the priest alone”. But these references to religious and clergy are rare enough to lead us to conclude that the readership for whom this theologian at his desk (stu- diously eschewing the role of a preacher) was composing his work was wider still, if not the general faithful. We saw in his statement of purpose above that his main concern was lack of understanding of the text on the part of those who “sing its melodies” but do not “recognise the sense of the words”, just as Chrysostom in his Commentary had lamented the fact “that those singing (the Psalter) daily and uttering the words by mouth do not enquire about the force of the ideas underlying the words”11. Yet, unlike Chrysostom, who envisages some degree of singing of the Psalms even in the didaskale⁄on where his classes were held, Theodoret is

10. PG 80, 860A. 11. PG 55, 427A. Theodoret, born about 393, hardly had firsthand acquaintance with John Chrysostom, who moved to Constantinople in 397 and died in exile a decade later, nor with Theodore, who was bishop of Mopsuestia in Cilicia from 392 until his death in 428. He did, however, know his fellow Antiochenes' work on the Psalms (including that of their mentor, Diodore of Tarsus), as emerges from his own Commentary. For Chrysostom's concerns about singers' understanding the psalms they sing, see the Introduction to my translation of his Commentary on the Psalms, Brookline MA, Holy Cross Press, 1998. THEODORET, COMMENTATOR ON THE PSALMS 91 generally quite insensitive to the liturgical and specifically musical dimension of the Psalms in Old Testament or New. His conviction is that his readers are short on understanding, and his focus is on teaching, he insists (those with the charism of teaching being the true trumpets and lyres spoken of in Ps 98). If not biblically illiterate, yet they are not scholars and they require even basic input; as he chides them in the opening commentary on Ps 3 on David's flight from Absalom, “This story, of course, is known to the more studious, but for the benefit of lazier people I shall summarise it”. We shall see that he himself is not completely sure-footed in his own acquaintance with the Scriptures, but he is insistent that his role is pedagogical; the preface makes this clear, as does the text of the Commentary, and he closes his brief conclusion with a smug application to himself of Matthew 5,19, “Whoever practises and teaches will be called great in the kingdom of heaven”12. We should qualify this identification of Theodoret's intended readership with some precision about the kind of teaching imparted. It is not liturgically oriented, we noted, nor does he see himself as a moralist in the manner of preachers, nor again does he set himself the role of spiritual director. His aim is principally cognitive, explaining the sense (or senses) of individual verses, even if this results in mere paraphrase frequently enough. Rarely does he apply the meaning – literal, figurative, historical, eschatological, anagogical, Christological – to the lives of his readers, a limitation which the longer form of the Commentary, repre- sented by some manuscripts but thought less likely to be authentic, is frequently found resisting. A further question is whether Theodoret had both women and men equally in mind in this task. He encourages us to raise the issue in commenting on the opening verse of the first Psalm, which in both the Hebrew original and in the LXX translation speaks only of the male, “Blessed the man who did not walk in the counsel of the ungodly”.

Now, no one seeing only a man declared blessed here should think that womankind are excluded from this beatitude. I mean, Christ the Lord in delivering the beatitudes with men in mind did not exclude women from possessing virtue: his words include men and women13.

The attempt at inclusiveness comes out in such a backhanded way that we are not surprised that Theodoret does not raise the matter again, and in his own practice ignores it: see the comment on v. 6 of that first Psalm, “While the work of righteous men (ãndrev) continues resplendent, even the evil of godless and unholy people is undone”; women central to some

12. PG 80, 1997B. In his commentary on that well-worn proof text Ps 110, Theodoret flatters his readers with the ability to appreciate the subtle theological distinctions in the current Trinitarian and Christological arguments. 13. PG 80, 868B-C. 92 R.C. HILL of the biblical narratives, like Sarah and Rebekah in the commentary on Ps 37,32-33 and Mihal on Ps 59,1, can go nameless; the menstruating woman of Mt 9,22 becomes “the sinful woman” in the commentary on Ps 107,20; the patriarchs Abraham and Isaac are congratulated for emerging unscathed from incidents in which their treatment of their wives could be classed as dastardly14. In the preface Theodoret raises some general questions: his attitude to previous commentators, authorship of Psalms and provenance of Psalm titles, meaning of the rubric diácalma occurring in the text. Unlike his predecessor in Antioch, Diodore, who conceded the titles were inserted after the Captivity, he regards them as original and not simply as later liturgical directions for a conductor, an error that together with his linguistic limitations often lands him in hermeneutical difficulties. He then makes a generally brisk comment on each verse. A Psalm is a text, written by David or first spoken and then written, not so much a hymn for singing. Understandably in view of his other pastoral commitments, Theodoret is not for wasting time; the commentary can be very concise in keeping with his principle expressed in the preface, “We shall make every possible effort to avoid a superfluity of words, while offering to those ready for it some benefit in concentrated form”, and he frequently enough finds paraphrase sufficient. Particular conciseness and a notable absence of scriptural documentation characterises whole blocks of Psalms more loosely related to David, like the eleven Psalms bearing the name of Asaph beginning with Ps 73 (missing also from Chrysostom's collection) and the group of Pilgrim Songs, or Songs of the Steps (Ps 120–134), which also failed to move Chrysostom, perhaps because they were tradi- tionally associated with the return from Exile. Some qualification, however, is to be made also about this conciseness of commentary by Theodoret hinted at above. We do not have a modern critical edition of the Commentary. To hand is the eighteenth century edition by J.L. Schulze that was reprinted a century later in J.-P. Migne's Patrologia Graeca (vol. 80, cols 857-1998). We are in the fortunate position that the work has come to us in direct manuscript tradition and that we are not dependent only on the catenae. There is evidence of two forms or recensions of the text, a long and a short one. The latter is attested to by more ancient witnesses, yet the longer form is cited by the Palestinian catena and thus was in existence since the sixth century. Schulze adopted the shorter form of the text in his edition, a choice in which Rondeau acquiesces without having been able to “submit to internal criticism the additions provided by the long form” and while also suggesting ways

14. The forms used in biblical expression in the version available to Theodoret and other Fathers were not helpful in this regard. This point is made by E.A. Clark, who further remarks: “The often repeated assertion that the coming of Christianity benefited women in general is not borne out in our evidence of the period”; cf. Women in the Early Church (Message of the Fathers of the Church, 13), Wilmington, DE, Glazier, 1983, p. 156. THEODORET, COMMENTATOR ON THE PSALMS 93

Schulze might have improved his edition by using “a much wider and more ancient manuscript documentation”15. Schulze's choice and Ron- deau's acquiescence and provisos seem sound: the reader gains the impression that a different spirit – personal, literary, hermeneutical, theological, sacramental – breathes through the longer form in excerpts inserted (haphazardly?) by Schulze into his text, some instances suggesting not independent tradition but a relationship of dependence of longer on shorter16. So when we find an unusual departure from concise commentary on verses like Ps 14,1 and 49,4, or an unaccustomed readiness to make a wider spiritual application of verse(s) of a Psalm like Ps 54, 55, 60, 63, 64, 71, 99, or addition of a hortatory conclusion as to Ps 62, we are not surprised to discover that it is from the longer form of the text that it comes17; we feel it is not vintage Theodoret who is speaking, but someone who does not always respect or even appreciate his intent.

THE COMMENTATOR'S RESOURCES

As a commentator on the Psalms, Theodoret brought a wide range of resources to the study of the text – personal, textual and traditional; we might speak of an embarrassment both of riches and of limitations. To an extent he had choices to make if he was to be faithful to his promises both to offer his readers the best of previous Psalms commentators and to “avoid a superfluity of words”; to an extent he was already the victim of his considerable exegetical shortcomings. His personal estimate of success in this total endeavor, offered in the Conclusion, may sound somewhat unnuanced: “what we succeeded in finding we proposed to everyone without stint, what we learnt from the Holy Spirit we were anxious to offer to posterity”. Theodoret presents himself as a scholar, not a preacher speaking from his pulpit like Chrysostom18. And he had many scholarly resources at his

15. Les commentaires patristiques, I, pp. 134-135. The edition of Schulze was based on three Munich mss of the 11th-15th centuries which, while not including earlier mss from the over fifty extant, at least have the merit of representing both long and short forms of the text. 16. For example, in Ps 65,6, where the Psalmist speaks of the Lord as “girt with his might”, Theodoret presents the Lord as wearing a belt, hÉnj. The longer form of the text, however, misreading the form as hwß, inserts a comment about the Lord sharing “life” with those who believe. 17. The author of the longer form is also impatient with Theodoret's flexibility on the authorship of the Psalms, and gravely postulates Davidic authorship, as with the first of the Asaph Psalms. The longer form tends to be more polemical, making snide remarks on “Arians, Eunomians, Macedonians and those that seem to entertain doctrines similar to them” (on Ps 58,4-5). Its author is even prepared to speak in derogatory fashion of Nesto- rius (on Ps 81), an attitude we would hardly expect of Theodoret. 18. In fact, Chrysostom's work on (fifty eight of) the Psalms has come down to us in a series of ërmjne⁄ai, and the question remains open as to whether they represent the text of homilies actually delivered; see my Chrysostom's Commentary on the Psalms: Homilies 94 R.C. HILL disposal, not only a mass of traditional studies on the Psalms by Fathers of earlier times but a considerable range of textual materials on the Psalms. His vademecum was, of course, a form of the Greek Bible, that work of “the seventy ancients” who “not without divine inspiration” (he claims in the preface) made available in Greek the sacred books “corrupted through the Jews' neglect”. Of the various forms or recensions of the LXX available at the time, his was most likely that in use in the school of Antioch. What we know of it comes from Antiochene commentators employing this form of the biblical text and from Jerome's remarks about it. In the preface to his Commentary on the Chronicles, Jerome spoke of the three forms of the LXX current in his time in Alexandria, in Constantinople-Antioch, and in “the provinces in between”, respectively19. The second of these, relevant here, he describes as “another version which Origen and Eusebius of Cae- sarea and all the Greek commentators call the popular text, and which by most is now called the Lucianic text”20, the work of the scholar-priest of Antioch, Lucian, a century earlier. The precise character of this Antioch- ene form of the LXX, which Theodoret and Chrysostom are thought to exemplify, is much debated. The claim that it stemmed directly from the Hebrew is now thought to be unlikely since Christian authors were generally ignorant of that language21; Jerome's label “Lucianic” is accepted by some scholars22, but rejected as a legend by others, who would prefer to speak of a “texte antiochien” or even a Palestinian version23. or Tracts? (above, n. 4). Theodoret's work is clearly of a different genre: it is “un com- mentaire au sens précis du terme” (Rondeau), since no engagement with a live audience is achieved or feigned, as is true also of his other major Commentaries, like those on the Prophets and Paul. 19. Praef. in Paral. (PL 28, 1324B-1325A). Cf N. FERNÁNDEZ MARCOS, The Lucianic text in the Books of Kingdoms, in A. PIETERSMA – C. COX (eds.), De Septuaginta. FS J.W. Wevers, Mississauga, Benden Publications, 1984, p. 102: “The ancient sources on the whole agree in their affirmation of a recension of the Greek Bible located in the regions of Syria and Asia Minor. It is also true that there is no clear idea of what this recension con- sisted nor whether it extended to the whole Bible or not”. 20. Ep. 106,2 (PL 22, 838). In view of Lucian's purported Arian associations, it is not surprising that Antiochene commentators like Chrysostom and Theodoret do not attach his name to their text of the LXX, precise though the latter is about the versions at his disposal. 21. So S. JELLICOE, The Septuagint and Modern Study, Oxford, Clarendon, 1968, p. 160-161. 22. Cf. D.S. WALLACE-HADRILL, Christian Antioch. A Study of Early Christian Thought in the East, Cambridge, University Press, 1983, p. 30; B. DREWERY, Antiochien II, in TRE 3 (1978) 103-113, esp. p. 106; S.P. BROCK, Bibelübersetzungen I,2, in TRE 4 (1979) 166- 167. Fernández Marcos, is happy to speak interchangeably of Lucian, a Lucianic recension, an Antiochian recension, noting also that the text of the Psalms betrays some unusual fea- tures, such as the presence of different forms owing to liturgical usage. Cf. Some reflec- tions on the Antiochian text of the Septuaginta, in D. FRAENKEL – U. QUAST – J.W. WEVERS (eds.), Studien zur Septuaginta – Robert Hanhart zu Ehren (Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens, 20), Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990, pp. 219-229. 23. Cf D. BARTHÉLEMY, Les Devanciers d'Aquila (SupplVT, 10), Leiden, Brill, 1963, pp. 126-27; J.-N. GUINOT, L'Exégèse de Théodoret de Cyr (Théologie Historique, 100), Paris, Beauchesne, 1995, pp. 171-172. K.G. O'CONNELL, Texts and Versions, in R.E. THEODORET, COMMENTATOR ON THE PSALMS 95

Alongside his copy of the local Greek Bible on Theodoret's desk stood a copy (or copies) of the Hexapla. For a commentator like Theodoret (if we balk at the term “textual critic” that J.-N. Guinot generously accords him) it was an invaluable resource, providing him with the Hebrew text and a transliteration of it in Greek characters, a different form of the LXX, and those three alternative ancient versions associated with the names of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion. He could therefore compare his local form of the LXX with another form of it and with other versions, and in regard to variant forms of Psalm titles could note extraneous items; for instance, on Ps 144 he remarks24:

“A Psalm for David”. In some copies I found inserted in the title 'Against Goliath;' but I did not find it in the Hebrew, in the other translators, or, in fact, in the Septuagint in the Hexapla.

He could thus compare readings in his form of the LXX with those provided in the Hexapla and with other “copies” (ântígrafa) also accessi- ble to him. One such form came to him in “the fifth edition”, that was aggregated to the Hexapla, and which he mentions in the comment on Ps 75.6 – perhaps gleaning this item of information from Symmachus25. This proliferation of forms of the LXX strewn across Theodoret's desk is testimony to the authority he attributes to it. Yet for comparative pur- poses he, like Chrysostom, has frequent recourse to the three renowned alternative versions bearing the names of (if not still in the form given them by) Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion; unlike Chrysostom he is not shy of their names. The extent and manner of this recourse are intriguing: we may see here (as does Guinot) an index of the priority Theodoret uniquely gives to textual criticism, or think the recourse so mechanical as to be the later addition of a copyist (as does Gilles Dorival on the variant readings in commentary on Ps 119)26. From the preface, with its note of deference to the LXX, one could get the impression that no alternative version could match the divinely-inspired Seventy; Aquila's rendering of the puzzling rubric diácalma found in some Psalms as

BROWN, et al. (eds.), The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Pren- tice Hall, 1990, p. 1092, would rather place the origins of this revision of the LXX in Pales- tine, matching Palestinian Hebrew mss from Qumran, and dating back to the late first century. 24. PG 80, 1960A. The phrasing is identical in the commentary on the psalm title of Ps 146, and similar to it on Ps 76, 139, 143, and on Ps 119,59. 25. In the view of Barthélemy, Les Devanciers d'Aquila, pp. 266-270, this “fifth edition” was a Palestinian revision of some books in the LXX. 26. GUINOT, L'exégèse de Théodoret de Cyr, pp. 177-180; G. DORIVAL, L'apport des chaines exégétiques grecques à une réédition des Hexaples d'Origène (À propos du Psaume 118), in Revue d'Histoire des Textes 4 (1974), p. 62; such an exercise on the part of the later copyist “s'agissait peut-Ûtre de rapprocher l'exégèse alexandrine de l'exégèse antiochienne”. Dorival claims G. Mercati drew the same conclusion about the variant readings that are a unique feature of Chrysostom's Psalms Commentary. 96 R.C. HILL

“always” Theodoret declines to accept on the grounds that “I consider it unjustified to dismiss so many people of such calibre and rely on the opinion of one single person”. Yet there are cases where invocation of alternative readings, such as on Ps 1,5; 7,6; 19,4-6, strikes the reader as mechanical and pointless, giving some color to Dorival's thesis. More generally, however, we gain the impression that Theodoret found the alternative versions offered him in the Hexapla a useful resource and employed them deliberately (if not consistently weighing up their relative merits in the manner of Theodore), as in the debate about the puzzling import of the elements in titles to Psalms like Ps 9. Their rendering of a word or phrase can be given priority, and in fact it becomes clear that the version of Symmachus is – almost as rule of thumb – given preference to the LXX as “clearer” basis for comment27, even when at times seeming to the reader to offer no better version. On Ps 42,7, which in the LXX reads “Deep calls on deep to the sound of your cataract. All your heights and your billows have passed over me”, Theodoret comments28:

Now, living in that land, he is saying, I was given over to a crowd of adver- saries, and became like someone drowning in the deep; he calls the ranks of soldiers deeps, and likens the extreme size of the crowd to immeasurable waters, and what was done by them to the flood of old which wiped out the whole world. Symmachus translated it more clearly, ‘Deep challenged deep with a roar of your torrents': you inflicted them, exacting of me a penalty for lawlessness.

But there are also places where the other versions, even the esteemed Symmachus, are declared to be less profound than the LXX or less ade- quate29. On this library of textual resources available to him Theodoret drew for explication of “the inspired word” (an alternative phrase to “David”, especially when attribution of a Psalm seems under question, as in the Asaph Psalms, and of frequent occurrence also in the Prophets commentaries), from “inspired” LXX in various forms and alternative versions. Could this “textual critic” access also the Hebrew text provided in the Hexapla? Not as frequently as Chrysostom, and thus less erroneously than he (who is more semitically naive), does he make reference to it, and generally when checking the less challenging text of Psalm titles; the Hexapla's transliteration would help there. In the body of the Psalms Commentary such reference is rarer, and generally in association with the Syriac version; so we may presume an early form of the Peshitta Bible

27. Cf. the comment on Ps 17,11; 20,3; 25,8; 27,11; 35,18; 43,4; 49,18; 65,9; 66,17; 73,22. 28. PG 80, 1173A. In the commentary on Ps 98,3 Theodoret cites in support Is 42,6 from the LXX, and then variant readings of this text from “the other translators”, presum- ably from the Hexapla (PG 80, 1660B). 29. Cf. the comment on Ps 22,1; 30,12; 37,20; 50,23; 123,4. THEODORET, COMMENTATOR ON THE PSALMS 97 also sat on his desk. In fact, it has been argued by Pierre Canivet that Theodoret was bilingual30, Syriac his mother tongue, Greek “sa langue de culture” (in Guinot's phrase); he is less definite about his claim to flu- ency in Hebrew31 – and rightly so, to judge from the text of the Psalms Commentary. While Theodoret's familiarity with that related semitic language Syriac (a dialect of Aramaic) was sufficient to prevent him com- mitting some of Chrysostom's solecisms32, it did not allow him to recognise those already perpetrated by his LXX text, particularly in Psalm titles. Like Chrysostom he accepts the confusion by the LXX of the musical direction for “flutes” (Heb. neÌiloth) in the title to Ps 5 with the verb naÌal, “inherit”, though we do not get a subsequent discourse on inheri- tances to the length to which Chrysostom goes. The similar musical direction in the title to Ps 22, “The Deer of Dawn” (apparently a cue to a melody), from 'ayyelet, “deer”, is rendered “on support at dawn” as though from from 'eyalut, “support;” likewise with Ps 45 the cue “For the Lilies”, shoshanim, is rendered as “those to be changed” as though from shanah. In the title to Ps 46 the word for “maidens”, alamoth, is read as “on the secrets” as though from alam, “conceal”. The ramim, “high places”, in Ps 78,69 is confused with r'emim, “unicorn”, and the resultant nonsense rationalised. And so on. As well, though occasionally he is alerted to the LXX's inveterate misreading of the tense of Hebrew verbs by the practice of the alternative versions (an unreliable index, as he finds to his cost on Ps 92,11), he is generally unaware of the error and accepts what his text gives him. He depends on others for the information that Ps 111 and 112 are alphabetic in the original, and this aspect of the long Ps 119 completely escapes him. It is with some reservation, therefore, that we listen to Theodoret sit- ting at this well furnished desk and appealing to us as he closes his

30. A phrase, perhaps incautiously taken from him, that Rondeau uses to imply that Greek and Hebrew were his two languages (Les commentaires patristiques, I, p. 136). Guinot, who also credits Theodoret with some knowledge of Hebrew, maintains in Qui est ‘le Syrien' dans les commentaires de Théodoret de Cyr?, in Studia Patristica 25 (1993) 60- 71, that this term Syros refers to a Syriac version close to and finally supplanted by the Peshitta. M.P. WEITZMAN, The Syriac Version of the Old Testament, Cambridge, CUP, 1999, p. 253, maintains that the Peshitta version of the Psalms, along with Pentateuch and Latter Prophets, already existed and had attained authoritative status by around 170. Cf. also J. JOOSTEN, The Old Testament Quotations in the Old Syriac and Peshitta Gospels, in Textus 15 (1990) 55-76. Could we go so far as to suppose that with his knowledge of Syriac Theodoret might have had recourse also to a targum of the Psalter? At one point he offers a characteristi- cally rabbinic comment, namely, on Ps 141,3: “‘Set, O Lord, a guard on my mouth, and a door round about my lips'. The creator gave two walls to the tongue, one of teeth and the other of lips, to check its irrational impulses” (PG 80, 1948C). 31. P. CANIVET, Histoire d'une entreprise apologétique au Ve siècle, Paris, Bloud & Gay, 1957, pp. 26-27. 32. See the Introduction to my translation of Chrysostom's Commentary on the Psalms and my article, Chrysostom, Interpreter of the Psalms, in Estudios Bíblicos 56 (1998) 61- 74. 98 R.C. HILL commentary, “If we have not in some cases arrived at the Spirit's hidden mysteries, do not be too hard on us: what we succeeded in finding we proposed to everyone without stint”. To be sure, he did assemble for the benefit of his readers an abundance of textual (and, as we shall see, other) resources for the task; it was his personal resources as a “textual critic” and exegete generally that to some degree stood between text and reader. In addition to his inability to access the original text of the Psalms (hardly unique to him among the Fathers, of course), his biblical familiarity is not without its flaws. In place of a representative grasp of key people in sacred history he shows a fascination for marginal figures, like Sennacherib's lieutenant Rabshakeh and Jonathan's treasonous son Mephibosheth, as in commentary on Ps 25, 27, 31, 52, and 86. His recall of the scriptural texts that he uses to document his commentary is often loose, as though the busy pastor had not time to check for accuracy. He can even be quite astray in itemising details of biblical pericopes: on Ps 2 he confuses characters and crowd numbers at Pentecost from Acts 2, on Ps 5 he has Jesus in place of the Baptist quoting Isaiah in Luke 3, on Ps 16 likewise he has Peter in place of Paul addressing the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch, on Ps 36 he confuses the two occasions when David took souvenirs from the unwitting Saul, on Ps 106 he cites – perhaps by a slip of the tongue – “Elijah the Tishbite” when he means Isaiah of Jerusalem; and so on with a dozen other Psalms. (What this commentator does bring, on the positive side, to his hermeneutical task in particular we shall outline below.)

A TRADITIONAL COMMENTATOR

A further massive resource that was available to him was the corpus of Psalms commentaries from the past, not only from Antioch but also from Alexandria. Theodoret is a traditional commentator, and he wants his readers to be steeped in that tradition, even if he senses some reservations: “Let no one think any the less of our efforts for the reason that others have produced a commentary on it before us”, he asks of them in the preface, stating his intention of steering a course midway between those extremes of historicism and allegory he claims to have found in the works of his predecessors. In the course of his own Commentary he does not admit, but at times betrays, a dependence on them. For example, in the commentary on Ps 16,5, “The Lord is part of my inheritance and my cup”, we are alerted by departure from his customary conciseness to his quoting the commentary of Eusebius, a quotation that is almost verbatim33. It is

33. PG 23, 157-158. Only in checking the authenticity of the title to Ps 93 does Theodoret admit he has Eusebius to hand: “The phrase ‘No title in the Hebrew' is not in the Hexapla nor in Eusebius”, he confides. (It should be noted that we have in direct tradition from Eusebius's Commentary only Ps 37, 51–95,3, the rest is from the catenae.) THEODORET, COMMENTATOR ON THE PSALMS 99 thought it was especially through Eusebius that Theodoret was able to access works of the Alexandrian commentators and in particular Origen's, and thus to make the critique of it in the preface. Clearly Theodoret has been influenced also by his fellow Antiochenes Diodore, Theodore and (to a less extent, it seems) John Chrysostom. Besides this unacknowledged dependence, in forty three places in the Commentary Theodoret makes a specific but anonymous acknowledgement of the views of his predecessors on particular loci, either to accept or to differ from them. J.-N. Guinot in his L'Exégèse de Théodoret de Cyr has painstakingly (if provisionally) assigned these views to one or other earlier commentator; the bulk of the references are to his Antiochene predecessors Diodore and/or Theodore, a smaller number to Eusebius, while there are no direct references to Origen, Didymus, “Athanasius”, Apollinaris or Basil34. When in the 440s he finally came to the task of interpretation of the Psalms, therefore, Theodoret had assembled a vast range of textual and traditional resources in support of his own insights into “the spiritual harmonies of the divinely-inspired David”. He is conscious of having worked hard to mediate these riches to his readers: “What we have succeeded in finding we proposed to everyone without stint, and what we have learnt from the Spirit we were anxious to offer to posterity. The labor undergone was ours, for others free of labor the benefit we offer”. We may admit his exegetical limitations, as we regret his decision to keep his pastoral experience from impinging on his commentary. Aware of his own inability to access the original text and of his dependence on others, he is nonetheless convinced that he has something peculiar to offer as an interpreter35. He brings an unwavering conviction of the inspiration of the composer of the Psalms, that “divinely inspired David”, an epithet he applies also to other biblical authors. They are all responsible as inspired composers (prof±tai) for producing inspired composition (profjteía), a term that Theodoret (like Chrysostom)36 will not apply to New Testa- ment authors, whom he classes as “apostolic” or as evangelists without denying their inspiration. “Old Testament inspired composition (profjteía) anticipates the Gospel teaching”, he says in pointing out the

34. L'exégèse, pp. 684-713. Rondeau, on the other hand, sees greater influence on Theodoret from Eusebius and “Athanasius” (Les commentaires patristiques, I, p. 70, 136). 35. Only half right, therefore, is G. BARDY (unacquainted, like many a commentator, with this work of Theodoret's beyond the preface) when he says, “Il n'a aucune prétention à l'originalité... Théodoret n'est ni un compilateur ni un copiste”; cf. Interprétation patris- tique, in DBS 4 (1949) 570-591, esp. col. 582. Quite the opposite conclusion is reached by J.-N. GUINOT, Les sources de l'exégèse de Théodoret de Cyr, in Studia Patristica 35 (1993), p. 94, who, beyond acknowledging Theodoret's ability to “offrir une synthèse clair et concise de l'interprétation de ses devanciers”, finds his originality in openness to other forms of interpretation. 36. See my articles, Psalm 45: A locus classicus for Patristic Thinking on Biblical Inspiration, in Studia Patristica 25 (1993) 95-100; Chrysostom's Terminology for the “Inspired Word”, in Estudios Bíblicos 41 (1983) 367-373. 100 R.C. HILL correspondence between Ps 33,6 and John's prologue on the world's cre- ation through the Word. Underlying his principle, enunciated in the preface, of letting the text speak for itself is the Antiochene tradition of the significance of all textual items – a conviction with deep theological roots in a Christology that respects the humanity of the incarnate Word. It is the principle of âkríbeia, precision of the commentator (not necessarily, of course, “accuracy” – a common mistranslation) in response to the precision in the text. For instance, Theodoret finds the first Psalm without a title, and observes, “(The Seventy) found this Psalm and the one after it without a title, and left them without titles, not presuming to add anything of their own to the sayings of the Spirit”. Conversely, if a textual detail occurs, it calls for comment: Ps 2,2 reads, “For what purpose did nations rage?”, and the omission of the article is noted; on Ps 37,20 it is worthy of a comment that the LXX reads “but” for the “and” of Aquila and Symmachus, who are each shown to give the verse a different meaning.

THE COMMENTATOR AS INTERPRETER

If he is to interpret the Psalms, Theodoret must have a position on their authorship, so he addresses the question with characteristic flexibility in the preface. He canvasses both more and less traditional points of view, applies his key criterion – “as long as it is clear that they were composed under the influence of the divine Spirit” – and looks for a majority opinion, if not a consensus: “Let the preference of the majority prevail: most historians say the Psalms are David's”. Allowing their current order to be a matter of historical development, he proceeds to classify them according to topic, theology and style. Then follows the question of their interpretation. Hoping to avoid the extreme hermeneutical positions of Alexandrian allegorism and Antiochene historicism37, he sees their meaning being historical, or generally eschatological, or more specifically Christological38:

(David) employs not only prophetic discourse but also parenetic and legal discourse as well; sometimes the teaching he offers is moral, sometimes dogmatic; in one place he laments the misfortunes of the Jews, in another he

37. It is thought Theodoret has Origen or (according to Schulze) Apollinaris of Laodicea in mind in one case, and Diodore and especially Theodore in the other. Cf the comment on Theodore of L. PIROT, L'œuvre exégétique de Théodore de Mopsueste, Rome, Pont. Inst. Bib., 1913, p. 137: “Il eut le tort de s'attacher uniquement au sens purement lit- téral, à l'explication historique et de négliger tout sens typique”. WALLACE-HADRILL, Christian Antioch, p. 39, concedes a “moderate historicism” to Theodoret. 38. PG 80, 861B-C. The reader of this Commentary feels that Theodoret, though aware of the work of his predecessors, is more independent of them in his interpretation than he is in another major “exegetical” work completed later in this decade, the Commentary on Isaiah. THEODORET, COMMENTATOR ON THE PSALMS 101

foretells the salvation of the nations. Frequently, however, it is the passion and resurrection of Christ the Lord he is predicting, and to those ready to attend he offers great satisfaction from the variety of inspired composition.

Decision to take a Psalm in one sense or another can rest on flimsy rea- sons, the titles exercising an influence: absence or presence of a title determines a Christological sense for Ps 2 and an historical sense for Ps 7. The frequent more general eschatological sense, in which the Psalmist is seen predicting developments in the early Church and the labors of the apostles, can take a specifically sacramental bent understandable in a churchman: on v. 7 of the penitential Psalm 51, “Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be cleansed”, Theodoret remarks at once, “Only the gift of baptism can achieve this cleansing” – an interesting remark for historians of the sacraments of reconciliation. As we remarked, however, the degree of application of Psalms to the spiritual lives of readers by this pastor is disappointing39 – a disappointment the long form of the text reflects in its compensatory insertions. Modern commentators on the Psalms who find genre and Sitz im Leben basic to their approach, like Arthur Weiser and Sigmund Mowinckel40, would likewise be disappointed in Theodoret's total lack of interest in this dimension; the more linguistically oriented commentators, of course, also approach the text differently from him41. The figurative language of the Psalms poses a particular problem for an interpreter. But Theodoret, with a commentary on the Song of Songs behind him, can show admirable sensitivity to it; even if attached to the literal sense, he is no literalist. On the musical cue “The Deer of Dawn” in the title to Ps 22, which on several scores he fails to grasp, he nonetheless can remind his readers, “Everywhere in Scripture, remember, evil is understood by analogy with darkness”. He helps them respond to the figurative expression in Ps 7,9, “God who tests hearts and entrails”, and as an amateur naturalist he develops the Psalmist's bird imagery in Ps 102,6- 7. But he would not want them to get so caught up in figurative, anthro- pomorphic expressions of the Scriptures as to fail in respect for divine transcendence; he warns them against such an expression in Ps 42,9, “Now, ‘You have forgotten me' means you have not given me a share in

39. One has therefore further reason to doubt that readers who insist on a clear pastoral dimension to the Commentary have in fact got beyond the preface, as with Bardy, who claims that “dans les commentaires de Théodoret on retrouve le même souci de l'aposto- lat” (Théodoret, in DTC 15/1, 1946, 299-325, esp. col. 312). There is likewise an excessive accent, as far as this Commentary is concerned, on Theodoret's “pastoral orientation” in an article (only slightly documented from the exegetical works) by C.T. MCCOLLOUGH, Theodoret of Cyrus as Biblical Interpreter and the Presence of Judaism in the Later Roman Empire, in Studia Patristica 18 (1985) 327-334. 40. Cf. A. WEISER, The Psalms (Old Testament Library), London, SCM, 51962; S. MOWINCKEL, The Psalms in Israel's Worship, 2 vols., Oxford, Blackwell, 1962. 41. Cf. M. DAHOOD, Psalms, 3 vols. (Anchor Bible 16, 17-17A), Garden City, Double- day, 1965, 1968, 1970. 102 R.C. HILL your providence: forgetfulness is a human weakness, whereas no such weakness belongs to God”. Though he does not employ the term so dear to Chrysostom, sunkatábasiv, he similarly urges them to appreciate this gesture of divine considerateness for human limitations made in the Scriptures. He chooses to take Ps 55 of Jesus' Passion, but warns the reader not to be unaware of the linguistic gesture involved in this42:

But let no one who takes note of the lowliness of the words think this unwor- thy of the incarnation of Christ the Savior. Let them consider rather that he who did not shrink from gall, vinegar, nails, thorns, spittle, blows and all kinds of drunken violence, and accepted death at the end would not have spurned lowliness of expression; after all, the terms should reflect the reality.

Chrysostom, whose influence is perhaps detectable here, could not have put it better himself: it is the principle of incarnation that is in evidence here, both by author and by appreciative reader43. The medium is not in conflict with the reality, in the person of Jesus or in the scriptural Word.

THE PRINCIPLE OF INCARNATION

In this incarnational principle – that the paxútjv of biblical language, as of the humanity of Jesus, is a divine gesture of considerateness – lay the reason for Antioch's attachment to the literal sense of Scripture (as also for its Christology and its down-to-earth spirituality) and its reluc- tance to take leave of this for an allegorical sense. Different levels of meaning could be discerned in a text, especially if Scripture itself sug- gested this – the principle (as old as Origen) of “Scripture interprets itself” – though we never find Theodoret formulating it in those terms, as we do Chrysostom44. When commenting on the familiar text of Ps 33,6, “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made”, he says, “So the face value of the text conveys the surface meaning of this: it was appropriate for the Jews of old. True theology, on the other hand, gives a glimpse of the Word with the all-holy Spirit making the heavens and the heavenly powers”, on the authority of John's prologue. To the penitential Psalm 32 he can give, along with an historical meaning in connection with David's repentance for his sin, a spiritual meaning of Christian sacramental for- giveness. This meaning can become strictly anagogical, especially with

42. PG 80, 1268C. This is not the place to discuss the propriety of Theodoret's Christol- ogy, which in the Commentary appears above reproach (see the Introduction to my translation). Studies like those of K. MCNAMARA, Theodoret of Cyrus and the Unity of Person in Christ, in Irish Theological Quarterly 22 (1955) 313-28, and M. MANDAC, L'union Chris- tologique dans les œuvres de Théodoret antérieures au Concile d'Ephèse”, in ETL 47 (1971) 64-96, arrive at a verdict that his Christology is “correcte tout en étant incomplète”. 43. Cf. my On Looking Again at synkatabasis, in Prudentia 13 (1981) 3-11. 44. Cf. Chrysostom's comments on Ps 45,4 (PG 55,191). THEODORET, COMMENTATOR ON THE PSALMS 103

New Testament support, as in the case of Ps 24,3, “Who will ascend the Lord's mountain?”, which Theodoret sees referring to the heavenly Mount Sion with the encouragement of the epistle to the Hebrews; and likewise in many other cases. An allegorical interpretation by Theodoret is rarer. Though he accepts the principle expressed by Diodore in his work on the Octateuch, that “we esteem the literal sense as far superior to the allegorical”45, charac- teristically he practises it more flexibly. Scriptural support for an allegorical sense need only be flimsy: on Ps 45,13-14, “All the glory of the king's daughter is within, in golden tassles, in many colors”, he comments, with an implicit reference to 1 Corinthians 12, “Within, he is saying, she has the comeliness of virtue and is resplendent with the manifold gifts of the Holy Spirit. The operations of the divine Spirit, you see, are varied; there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit, remember”. Typology, too, is a possible hermeneutic for an Antiochene46, again on the proviso of scriptural encouragement; perhaps a dozen times Theodoret has recourse to this device in the Commentary, as on Ps 61,5, “You gave an inheritance to those who fear your name”. It ought to be understood, however, that the words in question contain a fore- shadowing of the real inheritance; the real inheritance is eternal life, of which Christ the Lord said to the lambs on his right hand, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you before the foundation of the world”. The Lord promised to give this inheritance to those who fear him, and he restored the promised land to these people as though in a type47. For an Antiochene, of course, the ability to discern the correct level of meaning in a text required ‡ewría48. Diodore had written a work on the

45. Frgm 93; so C. SCHÄUBLIN, Diodor von Tarsus, in TRE 8 (1981) 763-767, p. 756, though M. GEERARD, Corpus Christianorum, Clavis Patrum Graecorum II, Turnhout, Bre- pols, 1974, § 3815, acknowledges only 91 fragments, accepting 1-78 as genuine; text found in PG 33, 1561-1588. 46. Though hardly the “standard method”, D. KRUEGER implies in his article Typolog- ical Figuration in Theodoret of Cyrrhus's Religious History and the Art of Postbiblical Narrative, in Journal of Early Christian Studies 5 (1997), p. 407. 47. PG 80, 1325C. One feels that neither Chrysostom nor Theodoret, though sympathetic with the re-assessment of the differences between Antiochene and Alexandrian exegesis and hermeneutics by F. YOUNG, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture, Cam- bridge, CUP, 1997, would agree with her that “‘typology' is a modern construct. Ancient exegetes did not distinguish between typology and allegory” (p. 152). They could have no objection to her later statement, “the word ‘typology' is a modern coinage” (p. 193). 48. Cf. A. VACCARI, La theoria nella scuola esegetica di Antiochia, in Biblica 1 (1920), p. 12: “La essenziale differenza fra teoria e allegoria consiste in ciò, che l'allegoria esclude di sua natura il senso letterale”. Theodoret would not be as exclusive as that in his hermeneutics, agreeing rather with Wallace-Hadrill: “It was the practice of theoria, insight, which enabled the Christian to see what could not be seen by people living in the old dispensation. It was a recognition that although the age of Law was to be distinguished from the age of Grace, yet both ages were part of the divine strategy, and some degree of continuity was inevitably to be seen running through from beginning to end by those enabled by the Holy Spirit to see it” (Christian Antioch, p. 35). 104 R.C. HILL subject, which Theodoret had clearly grasped. The reader of the Psalms, while allowing for realisation of prophecy in history, could in the percep- tive way of ‡ewría see its realisation also at another level. Ps 81 speaks of the stubbornness of the people in the wilderness, the Lord stating his consequent abandonment of them in v. 12; Theodoret sees this realised in a fuller way in the contemporary situation of the Jewish people, commenting, “The truth of the inspired composition is available for the dis- cernment (‡ewría) of those ready for it”49. What his Antiochene formation gave Theodoret, in short, if not a range of critical skills for exegesis, was an appreciation of the “inspired Word”, lógov profjtikóv (in his frequent phrase), incarnate in the figurative and sometimes lowly language of the Psalmist, and a prior if not exclusive esteem for its literal sense – in keeping with an Antiochene Christol- ogy and soteriology, of course. While his innate flexibility allowed him to move more freely than his betters from one level of meaning to another, his hermeneutical rationale in so doing is not always clear or well estab- lished. If flexible as a commentator, he does not feel it is proper for him to admit to ignorance (like the best of modern commentators, with all their exegetical skills) before an obscure text like Ps 68; and so he frequently falls to rationalising in a way we find unconvincing – humility, perhaps, being rare in a bishop. “Eisegesis”, too, is not beneath him. These limitations as a commentator we have labored; there are others that may be highlighted by readers expecting more from this pastor in the way of moral principle and spiritual guidance. Theodoret never moralises, rarely applies a Psalm to his readers' lives, and does not pretend to mys- ticism50; he would resist any claim to guru status. His objective as a teacher rather, professed honestly in the preface, was but to offer his readers “some benefit in concentrated form” so that all who came to the Psalter “might sing its melodies and at the same time recognise the sense of the words they sing”. In his conclusion he felt he had achieved that simple objective, drawing on the best of the past and making his own contribution “learnt from the Holy Spirit”. If the Psalms offer more and deserve better, he could not give it.

23 Cross Street Robert C. HILL Warrimoo, NSW 2774 Australia

49. The noun, in fact, is rare in the Commentary, the process being often referred to in the verb theorein. 50. L. BOUYER, The Spirituality of the New Testament and the Fathers, Eng. trans., London, Burns & Oates, 1963, pp. 436-437, sees an orientation in spirituality occurring in Antioch as a protest movement, beginning in monasticism and affecting theology and dogma, “from (Alexandrian) mysticism towards rather moralistic asceticism”. Its extreme is more visible in Chrysostom; we can be grateful Theodoret, here too, is more flexible.