8.Theodoret's Text of Romans Agnès Lorrain1

8. THEODORET’S TEXT OF ROMANS

AGNÈS LORRAIN1

In memory of Revd Dr Jerome Murphy O’Connor (o.p.)

Attempting to reconstruct the text of Romans in an early Christian writer means both to follow in the footsteps of the scholar who long ago wrote the Codex von der Goltz (GA 1739) and, I hope, to make a small contribution to the great project of the Editio critica maior.2 Within the compass of my own critical edition of Theodoret’s Interpretatio in epistulam ad Romanos (In Rom., CPG 6209), the biblical text poses a central problem.3 The evidence for the text of Paul in Theodoret of Cyr (393–c.460) is particularly important, because he is the only Greek author from the patristic era whose commentary on the Epistles is entirely preserved in its

1 The English translation of Theodoret’s commentary in this paper is taken from R.C. Hill, Theodoret of Cyr. Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul. Brookline MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001, in spite of its lack of precision at some points. I am very grateful to Kevin Stephens (o.p.) for helping me write the English text of this paper. 2 On the purpose of the scribe who wrote the Codex von der Goltz, see the introductory remark in O. Bauernfeind, Der Römerbrief des Origenes nach dem Codex von der Goltz (Cod. 184 B 64 des Athosklosters Lawra). TU 44.3. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1923, 91. Concerning the Editio critica maior, only the Catholic Letters have so far been published (B. Aland, K. Aland et al., Novum Testamentum Graecum: Editio Critica Major. IV, Die Katholischen Briefe. 2nd edn. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2013). As Morrill and Gram note on page 99 above, preparations are underway for the Pauline Epistles. 3 The edition is part of my doctoral dissertation (Paris-Sorbonne, 2015); further information about the biblical text of Theodoret, especially concerning the whole Pauline corpus, is provided in the introductory chapter. References to this critical text are provided in brackets in the present paper. 165 166 AGNÈS LORRAIN original language. This affords us the opportunity to know precisely the state of his own Pauline corpus. In addition, three features of his exegesis allow us to hope to be able to find interesting details concerning textual variants: first, he respects the sequence of the text, quoting and commenting on every verse; second, he pays close attention to the letter of the text; and third, he is often interested in textual criticism. In the course of this investigation, however, it was more the limitations of the approach than the positive results which came to the fore. For this reason we will focus on methodological issues before considering some features of the text. The vast majority of the variants we found affect neither the meaning nor the characterisation of the text. We have therefore focussed our attention on some variants presented by Bruce Metzger in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament.4

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES In order to reconstruct the biblical text of Theodoret, we shall examine the manuscripts, analyse the commentary, and compare Theodoret with other authors. Nevertheless, we quickly notice that these methods present very little certain information.

The problem of the manuscript tradition The first requirement for determining Theodoret’s text is the examination of the manuscripts.5 However, besides the difficulty of choosing between the different surviving witnesses, we cannot exclude the possibility of editorial intervention between Theodoret and the archetype we may reconstruct based on the manuscripts we have. The textual tradition of this work provides a clear illustration of the intervention of a copyist and the autonomy of the biblical text in the lemma when compared with the stemma built from the text of the commentary. So, while Paris, BnF, Supplément gr. 1299 (GA 2242) is a copy of Vatican,

4 B.M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd edn. London & New York: UBS, 1994, 505–41. Our comparison with the variant readings already noted by the editors of the New Testament is based on the information of both NA28 and K. Aland, Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testament I, 1. Berlin–New York: de Gruyter, 1991. 5 For the witnesses of Theodoret’s In epistulas Pauli, we not only studied the In Romanos but also the biblical quotations throughout the commentary. For his other works, we made reference to available critical editions.

8. THEODORET’S TEXT OF ROMANS 167

BAV, Vaticanus gr. 1649 (GA 1945), its biblical text is sometimes different. Some details show that the copyist paid more attention to the biblical text than to the commentary and used a biblical manuscript to correct and complete what he considered omissions. Indeed, we found phrases added at the end of a lemma which correspond to parts of verses written in the following sentences but which were not indicated by a diple.6 We may assume that this sort of intervention also occurred at an earlier stage. So the ‘text’ of Theodoret which forms the subject of the present paper, that is to say the biblical text of the archetype (to the extent that it can be reconstructed), may be quite far from the text actually commented upon by the Bishop of Cyr.7

The problem with studying the commentary Since the lemmata and quotations do not provide solid evidence, we must base our investigation on the content of the commentary. Contrary to what one might expect from Theodoret, his commentary on Romans provides little information because the explanations seldom relate to words which are subject to variation. Most surprising is the lack of text-critical remarks in comparison with Origen’s commentary on Romans and in contrast to Theodoret’s interest in the versions of the Old Testament.8 Only one comment may possibly refer to a variant reading. It concerns the name Priscilla. Theodoret says: Priscilla, or Prisca (you can find both forms in the books).9 Is this a comment about different copies of Romans? Both readings are to be found in surviving manuscripts. However, Theodoret does not seem to use the word βιβλίον in reference to different copies of one text, whereas

6 This is described more precisely in my dissertation. 7 The quotations of Romans in other works are probably less subject to correction. We consider them a good witness if they confirm a rare reading. 8 B.M. Metzger, ‘Explicit References in the Works of Origen to Variant Readings in New Testament Manuscripts’ in Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of Robert Pierce Casey, ed. J.N. Birdsall and R.W. Thomson, Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1963, 78–95, lists the text-critical remarks of Origen on Romans, according to Rufinus on 88–90. For Theodoret’s other works, see J.-N. Guinot, L’Exégèse de Théodoret de Cyr. Théologie historique 100. Paris: Beauchesne, 1995, 167–252. 9 Τὴν γὰρ Πρίσκιλλαν, ἢ Πρίσκαν, ἀμφότερα γὰρ ἔστιν εὑρεῖν ἐν τοῖς βιβλίοις. Theodoret, In Rom., V, PG 82, 220 B 1–2 (in my edition, V, 56: Rom. 16:3). 168 AGNÈS LORRAIN he often uses it in reference to a book of the Bible.10 Therefore, the exegete is probably referring to other books of the New Testament (e.g. Acts 18:2, 18; 1 Cor. 16:19) rather than to other copies of Romans, in the same way as Origen, who, with reference to the same verse, reads ‘Prisca’ and notes that we find ‘Priscilla’ in Acts.11 The commentary does not often indicate a particular reading, although examples of this will be given below. Sometimes a remark seems to be more satisfactory if we suppose a particular reading, and in that case we consider the reading likely but not certain. Let us see, for example, how Theodoret explains Romans 4:11: Εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν πατέρα πάντων τῶν πιστευόντων δι’ ἀκροβυστίας, εἰς τὸ λογισθῆναι (καὶ) αὐτοῖς τὴν δικαιοσύνην. Καὶ πατέρα περιτομῆς. Ὧδε χρὴ στίξαι. Δείκνυσι γὰρ τὸν πατριάρχην πρῶτον μὲν τῶν ἐν ἀκροβυστίᾳ πεπιστευκότων πατέρα, ἐπειδὴ καὶ αὐτὸς ἀκρόβυστος ὢν ἔτι, τὸ τῆς πίστεως δῶρον προσενήνοχε τῷ θεῷ, ἔπειτα μέντοι καὶ Ἰουδαίων, ὡς τῆς περιτομῆς αὐτῷ κοινωνησάντων. So that he might be father of all who believe despite not being circumcised in order that righteousness be reckoned (also) to them, and father of the circumcised. Here there is need of distinction: he shows the patriarch as father first of those who believed while uncircumcised, since he himself while still uncircumcised offered God the gift of faith, then of course also of Jews on the grounds of their sharing circumcision with him.12 The commentary is more coherent without the adverbial καὶ, which would seem to mean that the justification of pagans occurs after that of the Jews: according to Theodoret, Paul affirms that Abraham is ‘first of all’ father of the pagans. In a case such as this, we choose the reading without καὶ, as it is attested in the textual tradition of Theodoret.13 Some embarrassing examples show that the proof is sometimes more apparent than real. This is the case in Romans 7:25. Manuscripts of the

10 See Guinot, L’Exégèse, 180–1. For examples of the of the word βιβλίον meaning a biblical book, see Theodoret, Commentarius in Isaiam, XIX, SC 315, 266 (Is. 61:1); Commentarius in Canticum, PG 81, 49A 2. 11 According to Rufinus’ translation, cf. Origen, Commentarius in Romanos, X.18. 2, SC 555, 372. 12 Theodoret, In Rom., II, PG 82, 89 C 13–D 6 (in my edition: II, 14). 13 One old manuscript of Theodoret quotes the text without καί.

8. THEODORET’S TEXT OF ROMANS 169

Pauline Epistles contain different readings: χάρις τῷ θεῷ (or τοῦ θεοῦ) and εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ. Here is Theodoret’s commentary: Ταλαίπωρος ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπος, τίς με ῥύσεται ἐκ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ θανάτου τούτου ; Εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν. «Θανάτου» δὲ «σῶμα» καλεῖ, ὡς ὑπὸ τὸν θάνατον γεγενημένον, τουτέστι θνητόν. Ἡ ψυχὴ γὰρ ἀθάνατος. Μόνος, φησίν, ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς τῆς πικρᾶς ἡμᾶς ἠλευθέρωσε δυναστείας, τὸν μὲν θάνατον λύσας, τὴν δὲ ἀθανασίαν ἡμῖν ὑποσχόμενος, καὶ τὴν ἄπονον καὶ ἄλυπον βιοτὴν καὶ τὴν πολέμου δίχα καὶ ἁμαρτίας ζωήν. Τούτων μέντοι τὴν ἀπόλαυσιν κατὰ τὸν μέλλοντα δεξόμεθα βίον. Ἐν δὲ τῷ παρόντι τῆς τοῦ παναγίου πνεύματος χάριτος ἀπολαύοντες, οὐ μόνοι κατὰ τῶν παθημάτων παραταττόμεθα, ἀλλ’ ἐκείνην ἐπίκουρον ἔχοντες, περιγενέσθαι τούτων δυνάμεθα. Εἶτα τῶν εἰρημένων ἁπάντων προσφέρει τὴν λύσιν · Ἄρα οὖν αὐτὸς ἐγὼ τῷ μὲν νοῒ δουλεύω νόμῳ θεοῦ, τῇ δὲ σαρκὶ νόμῳ ἁμαρτίας. Wretch that I am, who will rescue me from the body of this death? I thank my God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Now, he speaks of a ‘body of death’, as though made subject to death — that is, mortal, the soul being immortal. Our Lord Jesus Christ alone, he is saying, freed us from that harsh domination, undoing death and promising us immortality, an existence free from hardship and grief, and a life without hostility and sin. Of course, we shall receive the enjoyment of these things in the future life, whereas in the present, enjoying the grace of the all-holy Spirit, we are not alone in being drawn up in battle array against the passions, and instead with that to help us we are able to prevail over them. Then he offers a solution to all that has been said: In my mind, then, I am a slave of God’s law, but in the body a slave of the law of sin.14 The manuscripts of the commentary unanimously read εὐχαριστῶ. In his edition, J.A. Nœsselt holds the view that, according to Theodoret’s explanation, one should rather read χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ. This is tempting, since the exegete says the grace of the Holy Spirit helps combat the passions. However we must be cautious for three reasons. First, the evocation of grace does not appear as an explanation of the words: Theodoret has already developed the idea of the salvation brought by Jesus Christ, which can depend on both readings, and then introduces a distinction, absent from the text, between the future life and the condition of the present life.

14 Theodoret, In Rom., III, PG 82, 128 A 5–B 7 (III, 32–33). 170 AGNÈS LORRAIN

In this framework he speaks about grace, specifying ‘the grace of the Holy Spirit’. In addition, his characterisation of the following verse as a ‘solution’ is more difficult to understand if we read χάρις, which appears to be a response. The second reason rests on the observation of exegetical practice in this commentary. Even if one considers that the comment on ‘grace’ (χάρις) is implied from the word in the lemma, the verb εὐχαριστῶ also works. Indeed, Theodoret repeatedly picks up a word when the text presents a derivative of it. For example, he says: Καὶ μὴ συσχηματίζεσθε τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ. Σχήματα μὲν καλεῖ τὰ τοῦ παρόντος αἰῶνος, οἷον πλοῦτον καὶ δυναστείαν καὶ τὴν ἄλλην περιφάνειαν, πράγματα δὲ τὰ μέλλοντα, ὡς μόνιμα ὄντα καὶ διαρκῆ. Οὕτω καὶ ἀλλαχοῦ · «Παράγει γὰρ τὸ σχῆμα τοῦ κόσμου τούτου». (…) Βούλεται τοίνυν ἡμᾶς ὁ θεῖος ἀπόστολος μὴ περὶ ταῦτα κεχηνέναι, μηδὲ στέργειν τοῦδε τοῦ βίου τὸ σχῆμα, ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖνα μετιέναι, ἃ προξενεῖ τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον. Far from being configured to this age. By the figures of the present age he is referring to things like wealth and influence and other pomp and circumstance, implying future things are stable and lasting. Likewise elsewhere, too, ‘The figure of this world is passing away, after all.’ (…) The divine apostle, accordingly, wants us not to long for such things nor fall in love with the figure of this life, but rather go after those things that bring life everlasting.15 Since Theodoret here claims that Paul is using (καλεῖ) the word σχῆμα, whereas in fact he certainly reads συσχηματίζεσθαι, then it is not at all unlikely that Theodoret reads εὐχαριστῶ in Romans 7:25 but speaks about χάρις. Indeed, a play on these two words is to be found in Chrysostom with regard to the same verse, which offers a third reason to be cautious: Εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ, φησί, διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν. Εἶδες πῶς ἔδειξεν ἀναγκαίαν τῆς χάριτος τὴν παρουσίαν, καὶ κοινὰ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ τὰ κατορθώματα; Εἰ γὰρ καὶ τῷ πατρὶ εὐχαριστεῖ, ἀλλὰ τῆς εὐχαριστίας ταύτης καὶ ὁ υἱὸς αἴτιος,

15 Theodoret, In Rom., V, PG 82, 185 B 13–C 13 (V, 3: Rom. 12:2). There are similar examples at In Rom., III, PG 82, 133 A 1 (III, 41: Rom. 8:13), where there is ἀποθνήσκειν in the lemma but Theodoret writes θάνατον λέγει, and In Rom., V, PG 82, 216 C 6–7 (V, 50: Rom. 15:27) with λειτουργῆσαι in the lemma but λειτουργίαν ἐκάλεσε in Theodoret’s commentary.

8. THEODORET’S TEXT OF ROMANS 171

I thank my God, he says, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Do you see how he showed that the presence of grace is necessary and that virtues are common to the Father and to the Son? For if he is giving thanks to the Father, then the Son is also responsible for that thanksgiving.16 The first sentence seems to imply the reading χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ, the second εὐχαριστῶ. In either case it shows that εὐχαριστεῖν and χάρις are much closer than the English words ‘thanksgiving’ and ‘grace’. Having found no case where the commentary is clearly incompatible with the lemma of the manuscripts, we have therefore not corrected the lemmata away from the manuscript tradition even when a reading found in biblical manuscripts could be considered to be more probable.

The use of other authors A comparison between the text transmitted by Theodoret’s commentary and quotations by other authors is sometimes useful, for it allows us to take account of readings which are not widely or at all attested in surviving manuscripts of the Epistles and which do not feature in the apparatus of critical editions of the New Testament. We generally prefer these readings to those which are to be found in direct tradition.17 With regard to searching for parallels in the interpretation, we limited ourselves to some very basic comparisons whith Origen and a survey of Chrysostom’s Homilies on Romans, because of the obvious kinship of the latter with the bishop of Cyr. It should be emphasised that this was not in order to rely on material found in John Chrysostom to reconstruct the text of Theodoret (presupposing the dependence), but rather to compare certain evidence provided by both in order to identify similarities and differences.

SOME RESULTS The examination of the manuscripts mostly confirms what earlier editions already allow us to affirm about Theodoret’s text of Romans. The errors found in these earlier editions only affect details about which the commentary does not allow us to affirm anything.18 In the following we will

16 Cf. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in Romanos, XIII, PG 60, 512, 11–15 (Rom. 7:25). 17 For example, the word order in Romans 2:8, 3:28 and 6:3 is not mentioned in NA28 but is to be found in other Fathers. 18 See for example Theodoret, In epist. Pauli, prol., PG 82, 39 B 1 (prol., 7: quotation of 2 Cor. 8:1); In Rom., IV, PG 82, 161 A 3-4 (IV, 18: Rom. 9:28). 172 AGNÈS LORRAIN focus on characterising Theodoret’s text from the evidence of the commentary, leaving aside variants which do not allow the classification of the text with regard to a group.19

Features of Theodoret’s text of Romans With regard to Romans as a whole, this commentary provides valuable evidence concerning the organisation of the last chapters. Theodoret’s text corresponds to what Kurt Aland describes as the Byzantine Majority form, consisting of Romans 1:1 to 14:23, then 16:25 to 27, followed by 15:1 to 16:24.20 A few additional details confirm this kinship with the Byzantine text. For example, in Romans 3:22 (‘God’s righteousness through the faith of Jesus Christ for all and upon all who believe’), Theodoret does not just read εἰς πάντας but must have had εἰς πάντας καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας, because he comments on the difference between both phrases: Δείκνυσι διὰ τῆς εἰς τὸν δεσπότην Χριστὸν πίστεως ταύτης ἀπολαύοντας, εἴτε Ἰουδαῖοι εἶεν εἴτε Ἕλληνες οἱ ταύτης τυχεῖν ἐφιέμενοι. Τὸ γὰρ «εἰς πάντας» τοὺς Ἰουδαίους λέγει, «ἐπὶ πάντας» δὲ τοὺς ἐκ τῶν ἄλλων ἐθνῶν.

19 For example, Theodoret’s commentary on Romans 5:1, indicating that Paul is moving to the exhortation and paraphrasing the verse as ‘It behooves [you] to preserve the peace made with God’ (Προσήκει δὲ ὑμᾶς τὴν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν γεγενημένην φυλάττειν εἰρήνην), is not understandable if one reads ἔχομεν in the indicative (Theodoret, In Rom., II, PG 82, 96 B 3–5 (II, 20).). A similar case is to be found in In Rom., V, PG 82, 205 A 13–15 (V, 32: Rom. 14:19). 20 In PG 82, 208 A 5–B 10, Romans 16:25–7 are set out as quotations rather than lemmata, with no verse numbers. On the text-critical problems at the end of Romans, see K. Aland, ‘Glosse, Interpolation, Redaktion und Komposition in der Sicht der neutestamentlichen Textkritik’ in Studien zur Überlieferung des Neuen Testaments und seines Textes, ed. K. Aland. ANTF 2. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1967, 46–8; K. Aland, ‘Der Schluß und die ursprüngliche Gestalt des Römerbriefes’, in K. Aland, Neutestamentliche Entwürfe, Munich: Kaiser, 1979, 284–301; P. Lampe, ‘Zur Textgeschichte des Römerbriefes’ NovT 27 (1985) 273–7; J.A. Fitzmyer, Romans, A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 33. New York: Doubleday, 1993, 44–54.

8. THEODORET’S TEXT OF ROMANS 173

He shows that they enjoy this through faith in Christ the Lord, whether they be Jews or Greeks who long to attain it. For the phrase ‘for all’ means the Jews and ‘upon all’ those from the other Nations.21 Other remarks allow us to oppose his text to the ‘Western’ text. For example the omission of υἱοθεσία from Romans 8:23 is not possible because Theodoret picks out the word and comments on its contradiction with Romans 8:15.22 Further examples of opposition to ‘Western’ readings include διαθῆκαι in Romans 9:4, κυρίῳ in 12:11, and probably also τοὺς πάντας in 11:32.23 No observation has been found in the commentary which agrees with a ‘Western’ reading or opposes the Byzantine text. However, as noted above, the commentary rarely permits confirmation or contradiction of the text of the lemmata, which usually provide Byzantine readings but might have been introduced at a later stage.

A comparison with Origen A thorough comparison of Theodoret with the texts of other ancient authors is not possible within the parameters of the present study, but some observations may be made regarding the two authors mentioned earlier. The most obvious difference from Origen, according to the translation of his commentary by Rufinus, concerns the end of Romans. Origen attributes the shorter text ending with 14:23 to Marcion and instead has 16:25–27 at the end of the Epistle, although he also knows of manuscripts with these verses after 14:23.24 Other clear oppositions are evident from their commentaries, as in the variation between θεοῦ (the reading of Alexandrian and Western witnesses) and Χριστοῦ (the Byzantine text) in Romans 14:10 (‘After all, we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God’ or ‘of Christ’). Theodoret’s interpretation would not be understandable without Χριστοῦ, since he notes that Paul applies the following quotation of Isaiah to Christ and so proves the divinity of

21 Theodoret, In Rom., II, PG 82, 84 B 11–15 (II, 6). I have translated the last sentence, which is not to be found in R.C. Hill. A similar example may be found in IV, PG 82, 168 Β 4–6 (IV, 26: Rom. 10:15), with the addition of τῶν εὐαγγελιζομένων εἰρήνην. 22 Theodoret, In Rom., III, PG 82, 137 D 2–6 (III, 50). 23 See, respectively, In Rom., IV, PG 82, 149 D 3–7 (IV, 5); In Rom., V, PG 82, 189 C 14–D 1 (V, 8); In Rom., IV, PG 82, 181 C 11–D 5 (IV, 47). 24 Cf. Origen, Com. in Rom., X, 43, 1, SC 555, 440. 174 AGNÈS LORRAIN

Christ.25 The commentary of Origen–Rufinus allows us to affirm that his text has ‘the judgment seat of God’, since he notes the difference whith ‘the judgment seat of Christ’ used elsewhere by the Apostle.26

A comparison with John Chrysostom The comparison of the biblical text in Theodoret’s and Chrysostom’s commentaries presents more than one scenario. The most simple is when both authors imply the existence of the same text. For example, they have the same arrangement of verses in Romans 14–16, and share some similar oppositions to ‘Western’ readings.27 Furthermore, both Chrysostom and Theodoret emphasise the words μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν (‘who walk not according to the flesh’) in Romans 8:1, which is considered to be a Byzantine addition.28 In the second scenario, only one of the commentaries can be taken in support of a particular form of text, so we cannot affirm a similarity between the two authors. We find several remarks in Chrysostom confirming that he is commenting on the Byzantine text, transmitted in the lemmata of Theodoret’s manuscripts but not confirmed from his commentary. For example, Chrysostom insists on the word πρῶτον in Romans 1:16 (‘the Jew first of all’).29 When speaking about Abraham’s faith, he obviously reads Romans 4:19 with the negation (οὐ κατενόησεν): Ὁρᾷς πῶς ἀφῆκε τὰ ὁρώμενα; πῶς οὐκ εἶδεν εἰς τὸ γῆρας; Καίτοι γε αὐτὸ πρὸ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν ἔκειτο· ἀλλὰ τοῖς τῆς πίστεως ὀφθαλμοῖς ἑώρα, οὐ τοῖς τοῦ σώματος. Διὸ οὐκ εἶδε τὸ γῆρας, οὐδὲ τὴν νέκρωσιν Σάρρας,

25 Cf. In Rom., V, PG 82, 201 C 11–D 5 (V, 27). This reading is confirmed by the commentary in Theodoret, In Isaiam, XIV, SC 315, 40. There is a similar remark in Didymus the Blind (?), De Trinitate, I.15.3 (J. Honscheid, ed. and trans., Didymus der Blinde, De trinitate, Buch I. Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie 44. Meisenheim am Glan: Hain, 1975, 47). 26 E.g. 2 Corinthians 5:10. Origen, Com. in Rom., IX, 41, 7, SC 555, 232–5. 27 Similar comments to those of Theodoret may be found in Chrysostom about Romans 8:23 (John Chrysostom, Hom. in Rom., XIV, PG 60, 551.33–6); Romans 11:32 (Hom. in Rom., XIX, PG 60, 592.35–52); Romans 12:11 (Hom. in Rom., XXI, PG 60, 605.52–6). 28 John Chrysostom, Hom. in Rom., XIII, PG 60, 513.8–12; Theodoret, In Rom., III, PG 82, 129 B 9–11 (III, 37: Rom. 8:5). See Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 515. 29 Cf. John Chrysostom, Hom. in Rom., II, PG 60, 408.60–409.14.

8. THEODORET’S TEXT OF ROMANS 175

Can you see how he left behind what was seen, how he did not look at old age? However it was in front of his eyes! But he looked with the eyes of faith, not with the eyes of the body. That is why he did not look at his old age or at the decrepitude of Sarah.30 Conversely, the insertion of πορνείᾳ (‘immorality’) at the beginning of the list of vices in Romans 1:29 is implied by the commentary of Theodoret, who explains each term of the list.31 According to the quotation of the verse to be found in his homily, Chrysostom does not have this Byzantine addition in his text, but his comment does not allow us to confirm the absence of the term. A further scenario would be that the comments imply a different text. We found no example of this. The overall similarity between the form of Romans in the two authors is obvious. With regard to particular details of the text, we are rarely able to affirm the existence of a common reading, but we nevertheless do not find any evidence for divergence. From what has been seen above it is plain that the few readings attested to by each commentary always correspond to the Byzantine text. Nothing therefore prevents us from assuming that they both had a similar text, as their historical and geographical proximity suggests.

CONCLUSION The investigation of Theodoret’s commentary on Romans allows us to confirm that his biblical text has Byzantine features, similar to those found in Chrysostom. However, indications of his biblical affiliation are few and far between, and it is possible that this impression has been accentuated by the rearrangement of the biblical lemma by later copyists where no particular reading is implied in the commentary. Indeed, we found clear evidence of this practice in the manuscript tradition of this text, with the replacement of the biblical lemmata in Paris, BnF, Supplément gr. 1299 (GA 2242). We also found evidence in the variant readings among the earliest surviving manuscripts of this commentary. If this happened at an

30 John Chrysostom, In illud: Hoc scitote quod in nouissimis diebus, PG 56, 272.37– 41. See also the emphasis of νόμου in 9:32 (John Chrysostom, Hom. in Rom., XVI, PG 60, 564.5–7), of πᾶς in 9:33 (Hom. in Rom., XVI, PG 60, 564.11–17), and the comment on the verb ἐνοικεῖν preferred by Paul to οἰκεῖν (Hom. in Rom., XIII, PG 60, 520.30–2). 31 Theodoret, In Rom., I, PG 82, 65 B 7–9 (I, 28). 176 AGNÈS LORRAIN earlier stage in the textual tradition as well, which is probable, the text of Romans known to Theodoret may have been different from what we see in the lemmata. This study has made us aware of the importance of the exegetical practice of Theodoret in this commentary. It is necessary to know the habits of the author in order to evaluate the extent to which an apparent indication of his biblical text is reliable. The difficulties encountered by the present author suggest the magnitude of the task for examining patristic evidence for the Editio critica maior. Further, the lack of text-critical remarks in this commentary encourages one to wonder whether Theodoret had read Origen’s commentary. However, Theodoret’s autonomy with regard to the textual remarks of Origen has already been demonstrated.32 Perhaps this issue did not seem important to him. It is our good fortune that some points upon which he focussed his attention for the purposes of his explanation allow us to locate his text with regard to the broader textual tradition of the Pauline Epistles.

32 J.-N. Guinot, ‘La fortune des Hexaples d’Origène aux IVe et Ve siècles en milieu antiochien’ in J.-N. Guinot, Théodoret de Cyr, exégète et théologien. I. Le dernier grand exégète, Paris: Cerf, 2012, 431–44.