theodoret of cyrus (questions on the octateuch. volume 1, on genesis and exodus)

8/9/2019 Theodoret of Cyrus (Questions on the Octateuch. Volume 1, On Genesis and Exodus)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theodoret-of-cyrus-questions-on-the-octateuch-volume-1-on-genesis-and-exodus 1/451



The Questions on the Octateuch

On Genesis and Exodus



T H E L I B R A R Y O F E A R LY C H R I S T I A N I T Y

. ,

The Catholic University of America

The Australian Catholic University

.

The University of Notre Dame


.

The Catholic University of America, Emeritus

Hebrew Union College—Jewish Institute of Religion

.


.

Dickinson College, Emeritus

. ,

The Catholic University of America Press




T H E L I B R A R Y O F E A R LY C H R I S T I A N I T Y

Theodoret of CyrusThe Questions on the Octateuch


Greek text revised by .

English translation withintroduction and commentary by

† .

The Catholic University of America PressWashington, D.C.



Copyright ©

The Catholic University of America PressAll rights reserved

The paper used in this publication meets the minimumrequirements of American National Standards for InformationScience—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials,

.–.∞

Designed and typeset by Kachergis Book Design;printed by Edwards Brothers

--

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus.[Quaestiones in Octateuchum. English & Greek.]

The questions on the Octateuch. On Genesis and Exodus /Theodoret of Cyrus ; Greek text revised by John F. Petruccione ;

English translation with introduction and commentary by RobertC. Hill.

p. cm. — (The library of early Christianity ; v. )Includes bibliographical references and index.

---- (cloth-vol 1 : alk. paper) — --

-- (paper-vol : alk. paper) — ----

(cloth-vol : alk. paper) — ---- (paper-vol :alk. paper) . Bible. O.T. Genesis—Criticism, interpretation, etc.. Bible. O.T. Exodus—Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Petruc-

cione, John, – II. Hill, Robert C. (Robert Charles), –

III. Title. IV. Title: On Genesis and Exodus. V. Series..

.—dc



CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1

Acknowledgments vii

Abbreviations xi

Introduction to Theodoret’s Life and Works xix . Theodoret, xix nn . The Circumstances of Composition of the Questions

on the Octateuch, xx nn . Theodoret’s Biblical Text, xxii nn\. Theodoret’s Approach to Scripture, xxvii nn

. The Sources of Theodoret’s Exegesis, xxx nn . Theodoret’s Style of Commentary: The Genre of Questions, xxxii nn . Theodoret’s Position on the Octateuch, xxxvii nn

. Theodoret as Interpreter of the Octateuch, xli nn . Theological Issues in the Questions on the Octateuch, xlvi nn .Theodoret’s Achievement in the Questions on the Octateuch, l nn . The Identification, Translation, and Presentation of Theodoret’s

Quotations of Scripture [J.F.P.], lii mn

Introduction to the Greek Text (J.F.P.) lvii. This Edition and Its Antecedents, lvii mm. Corrigenda to the Madrid Edition, lxxviii nn

Bibliography lxxxvii

Conspectus siglorum xcvii. The Manuscripts and Their Contents, xcvii n . Signs and Abbreviations Used in the Greek Text and the

Critical Notes, ciii nn

The Questions on Genesis

The Questions on Exodus



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

John F. Petruccione, Editorial Director of the Library of Early Christianity

I am most grateful to Professor Robert C. Hill for choosing thisnascent series for his fine translation of and commentary onTheodoret’s Questions on the Octateuch . We had intended to printthis work as the first volume of the LEC, but as the manuscript ex-tended to a length greater than anticipated, Dr. McGonagle, Direc-tor of the CUA Press, and I decided to divide it between volumesone and two. We hope that we have consulted the interests of our

readers by producing, rather than one very unwieldy and expensivetome, two books of manageable size and lower price.

Both Prof. Hill and I owe debts of gratitude to those who haveadvised and assisted us in this large project. Father Natalio Fernán-dez Marcos has looked through lists of questions regarding errata,variant readings, and issues of punctuation. In addition, he has pa-tiently answered numerous queries regarding the contents and lacu-

nae of individual manuscripts. Dr. Françoise Petit has provided in-formation regarding the source of passages erroneously attributedto Theodoret by the Catena Nikephori. Though I should have beenable to locate all of these within her meticulous editions of the Cate-nae on Genesis and Exodus, she kindly replied to a request for directassistance, thus rescuing me from my own confusions and sparingme some hours of searching.

I have frequently received assistance from my colleagues at theCatholic University of America. Drs. William McCarthy and Eustra-

vii



tios Papaioannou (now of Brown University) entertained queriesregarding Greek usage, and Dr. McCarthy also provided some usefulbibliographical suggestions. I am especially indebted to Dr. Robert

Caldwell, who devoted several evenings to discussing textual vari-ants as well as issues of translation and punctuation. I am certainthat his advice led me to better solutions on a number of points. My retired colleague, Dr. M. Scowcroft, has kindly provided informa-tion on the ms. Dublin, Trinity College, D.. .

My research assistants have performed some very large tasks es-sential to the completeness and accuracy of this volume. Mr. Daryl

Grissom has proofread the entire Greek text once and large sectionsof it a second time. Mrs. Rachel Gilbert has also assisted in theproofreading of both the Greek text and the “Introduction to theGreek Text.” Throughout Mr. Brent Gilbert has been my primary as-sistant. After helping me compile the apparatus of ancient sources,he entered all the call-out letters in both the Greek text and the Eng-lish translation. In addition, he proofread sections of the Greek textand all the textual notes, compiled the Index scripturisticus, and as-sisted in the compilation of the other indices. Indeed, his critical at-tention to myriad details has improved every aspect of this volume.

We have been particularly fortunate to have the editorial assis-tance of Susan Barnes. She has read the entire manuscript with hereagle’s eye for inconsistencies, infelicities, and lack of clarity. In ad-dition, her knowledge of both patristic literature and the Greek lan-guage has spared us the embarrassment, and the reader the con-

fusion, that would have arisen from many a misstatement or inaccu-rate translation. Her contribution is thus that of scholarly reader aswell as copy editor, functions seldom performed by the same per-son.

Finally, I wish to thank the many generous patrons who havecontributed toward the endowment of this series. I am particularly grateful to my professional colleagues, the members of the North

American Patristic Society, who have offered both moral and finan-cial support. They have waited a long time for volume one.

Acknowledgments

viii



Robert C. Hill

I am grateful to Dr. J. Petruccione, the Editorial Director of the

Library of Early Christianity, and to Dr. D. McGonagle, Director of the CUA Press, for their decision to print this work in the first vol-umes of the LEC. It owes much to the painstaking attention of theEditorial Director.

Acknowledgments

ix



ABBREVIATIONS

OT Old Testament

Gn Genesis

Ex Exodus

Lv Leviticus

Nm Numbers

Dt Deuteronomy

Jos Joshua

Jgs Judges

Ru Ruth

–Sm The first and second books of Samuel

–Kgs The first and second books of Kings

–Chr The first and second books of Chronicles

Ezr Ezra

Neh Nehemiah

Tb TobitEst Esther

Jdt Judith

–Mc The first and second books of Maccabees

Jb Job

Ps(s) Psalms

Prv Proverbs

Eccl EcclesiastesSong Canticle of Canticles, Song of Songs

xi



Abbreviations

xii

Wis Wisdom of Solomon

Sir Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach, Ecclesiasticus

Is Isaiah

Jer JeremiahLam Lamentations

Bar Baruch

Ezek Ezekiel

Dn Daniel

Hos Hosea

Jl Joel

Am Amos

Ob Obadiah

Jon Jonah

Mi Micah

Na Nahum

Hab Habakkuk

Zep ZephaniahHag Haggai

Zec Zechariah

Mal Malachi

NT New Testament

Mt Matthew

Mk Mark

Lk LukeJn John

Acts Acts

Rom The Epistle to the Romans

–Cor The first and second Epistles to the Corinthians

Gal The Epistle to the Galatians

Eph The Epistle to the Ephesians

Phil The Epistle to the Philippians

Col The Epistle to the Colossians



–Thes The first and second Epistles to the Thessalonians

–Tm The first and second Epistles to Timothy

Ti The Epistle to Titus

Phlm The Epistle to PhilemonHeb The Epistle to the Hebrews

Jas The Epistle of St. James

–Pt The first and second Epistles of St. Peter

–Jn The first through third Epistles of St. John

Jude The Epistle of St. Jude

Rv Apocalypse, Revelation

Ador. Cyr., De adoratione et cultu in spiritu et ueritate

Affect. Thdt., Graecarum affectionum curatio

A.I. Jos., Antiquitates iudaicae

Apoc. Areth., Commentarius in Apocalypsin

Apol. Iust., Apologiae –

Areth. Arethas Caesariensis Cappadociae

Aug. Augustine

Bas. Basilius Caesariensis Cappadociae

Bibl. Phot., Bibliotheca

Cant. cant. Thdt., Commentarius in Canticum canticorum

Cels. Or., Contra Celsum

Chrys. Johannes ChrysostomusCiv. Caesar, De bello ciuili

Clem. Clemens Alexandrinus

Col. Thdt., Commentarius in Ep. ad colossenses

Cor. Thdt., Commentarius in Epp. ad corinthios

Cyr. Cyrillus Alexandrinus

Dan. Thdt., Commentarius in Danielem

D. e. Eus., Demonstratio euangelica Dial. Dialogus

Abbreviations

xiii



Didym. Didymus Alexandrinus

Diod. Diodorus Tarsensis

Enarr. in Ps. Aug., Enarrationes in Psalmos

ep(p). epistula(e)Epiph. Epiphanius Constantiensis

Epp. Paul. Thdt., Interpretatio in xiv epistulas sancti Pauli

Eran. Thdt., Eranistes

Et. gud. Etymologicum gudianum

Eus. Eusebius Caesariensis

Exp. in Ps. Chrys., Expositiones in Psalmos quosdam

Expl. apol. in hex. Gr. Nyss., Explicatio apolgetica in hexaemeron

Ezech. Thdt., Commentarius in Ezechielem

frag(g). fragmentum (-ta)

Gal. Thdt., Commentarius in Ep. ad galatas

Glaph. Gen.-Dt. Cyr., Glaphyra in Pentateuchum

Gr. Naz. Gregorius Nazianzenus

Gr. Nyss. Gregorius NyssenusHaer. Epiph., Panarion seu Aduersus lxxx haereses or Iren.,

Aduersus haereses

Haer. com. Thdt., Haereticarum fabularum compendium

H. e. Eus., Historia ecclesiastica

Heb. Thdt., Commentarius in Ep. ad hebraeos

Her. Herodotus

Hex. Bas., Homiliae in hexaemeron hom. homiliae, homilias

Hom. – in Gen. Chrys., Homiliae in Genesim

Hom. in Coloss. Chrys, Homiliae in epistulam ad colossenses

Hom. in Ioh. Chrys., Homiliae in Iohannem

Hom. in Ios. Or., Homiliae in Iosuam

Hom. – in Is. . Chrys., Homiliae in Isaiam (in illud, Vidi dominum)

Hom. opif. Gr. Nyss., De hominis opificio H. rel. Thdt., Historia religiosa

Abbreviations

xiv



Ier. Thdt., Commentarius in Ieremiam

Ios. Joshua

Iren. Irenaeus Lugdunensis

Is. Thdt., Commentarius in IsaiamIud. Chrys., Aduersus Iudaeos

Iuln. Cyr., Contra Iulianum

Iust. Iustinus Martyr

Jos. Josephus

Marc. Tert., Aduersus Marcionem

Mi. Thdt., Commentarius in Michaeam

Migr. Ph., De migratione Abrahami

Or. Origenes

or. oratio

patm. Thdt., Epistulae, collectio patmensis

pf. praefatio

Ph. Philo Iudaeus

Phot. Photius ConstantinopolitanusPl. Plato

Placill. Gr. Nyss., Oratio funebris de Placilla

Princ. Or., De principiis

proem. proemium

Proph. obscurit. Chrys. De prophetiarum obscuritate hom. –

Prouid. Thdt., Orationes de prouidentia

Ps. Thdt., Commentarii in Psalmos Q. in Gen. (Ex., Thdt., Quaestiones in Genesin (Exodum,

Leu., Num., Deut., Leuiticum, Numeros, Deuteronomium,Ios., Iud., Ruth ) Iosuam, Iudices, Ruth )

Quaest. et resp. Thdt., Quaestiones et responsiones ad orthodoxos

Quaest. in oct. Thdt., Quaestiones in octateuchum

Quaest. in Reg. Diod. or Thdt., Quaestiones in Reges et Par. et Paralipomena

– Reg. libri – Regum = –Kgs

Abbreviations

xv



Rep. Pl., De republica

Rom. Thdt., Commentarius in Ep. ad romanos

ser. sermo, sermones

Ser. – in Gen. Chrys., Sermones in Genesimsirm. Thdt., Epistulae, collectio sirmondiana

Spec. Ph., De specialibus legibus

Str. Clem., Stromateis

Tert. Tertullianus

Thdt. Theodoretus Cyrrhensis

Ti. Pl., Timaeus

V. Mos. Gr. Nyss., De uita Mosis

Zach. Thdt., Commentarius in Zachariam

,

, ,

AncB Anchor Bible

Aug Augustinianum

BDB F. Brown, S.R. Driver, and C.A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament

BHS Biblia hebraica stuttgartensia

Bib. Biblica

CChr.SG Corpus Christianorum: Series graeca

CChr.SL Corpus Christianorum: Series latina

CHB The Cambridge History of the Bible

CPG Clavis patrum graecorum

CQ Classical Quarterly

DBS Dictionnaire de la Bible. Supplément (Paris)

Dict. J.L. McKenzie, Dictionary of the Bible

DThC Dictionnaire de théologie catholique

FOTC Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC)

GCS Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der erstendrei Jahrhunderte

Hatch and Redpath E. Hatch and H.A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint

Abbreviations

xvi



HeyJ Heythrop Journal

IThQ Irish Theological Quarterly

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

LXX Septuagint = the predominant form of the Greek text of the OT

LSJ H.G. Liddell, R. Scott, H.S. Jones, and R. McKenzie,A Greek-English Lexicon

Month The Month

MSU Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens

MT Masoretic Text = the predominant form of theHebrew text of the OT

NCBC The New Century Bible Commentary NJBC R.E. Brown et al., New Jerome Biblical Commentary

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

ns new series

OBS Österreichische Biblische Studien

OCP Orientalia christiana periodica

OTL Old Testament Library

PG Patrologia graeca, ed. J.-P. Migne (Paris –)PGL G.H.W. Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon

PL Patrologia latina, ed. J.-P. Migne (Paris –)

Quasten J. Quasten, Patrology

RB Revue biblique

REG Revue des études grecques

SC Sources chrétiennes

SE Sacris Erudiri

Sef. Sefarad

StT Studi e Testi

StudP Studia Patristica

TDSA Testi e documenti per lo studio dell’ antichità

TECC Textos y estudios “Cardenal Cisneros"

TEG Traditio Exegetica Graeca

ThH Théologie historique

Theoph. Theophaneia: Beiträge zur Religions- undKirchengeschichte des Altertums

Abbreviations

xvii



ThRes Theological Resources

TLG Thesaurus linguae graecae (stephanus.tlg.uci.edu)

TRE Theologische Realenzyklopädie

VSen Verba seniorum

ad loc. ad locum = on the aforementioned passage

ap. crit. apparatus criticus = the critical notes on the Greek text

ap. font. apparatus fontium = the apparatus of ancient sources

Abbreviations

xviii



INTRODUCTION TO THEODORET’S

LIFE AND WORKS

.

Born about in Antioch, Theodoret owed his name to gratefulparents, who were responsible for his entering monastic life at anearly age. Since his famous predecessors in that school, if we may use the term,1 John Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia, bothpupils of Diodore of Tarsus, had been appointed to episcopal re-sponsibilities in Constantinople in and in Mopsuestia in Ciliciain , they cannot have exercised much direct influence on Theo-

doret’s formation. In he was elected bishop of Cyrus, a city about kilometers NE of Antioch, perhaps a “little backwater”2

yet, as Theodoret tells us, a see with responsibility for eight hundredparishes.3 Caught up in the theological turmoil in the wake of thecouncil of Constantinople of , he represented the christologicalpositions of the oriental bishops against that of Cyril of Alexandriaand his party. His episcopal and civic duties did not prevent himfrom writing numerous dogmatic, apologetic, and historical works.In addition, he composed commentaries on Paul’s letters and most

xix

. J. Quasten does speak (vol. , p. ), in a local and corporate sense, of “theschool of Antioch.......founded by Lucian.......in direct opposition to the excessesand fantasies of the allegorical method of Origen,” but we prefer to use the termonly of a fellowship of like-minded scholars joined by birth, geography, and schol-arly principles, even if some members did exercise a magisterial role.

. V. F.M. Young, From Nicaea to Chalcedon, p. , but on the evidence of Ep.

, she also concedes (p.

) the extent of Theodoret’s pastoral responsibilities.All references to Theodoret’s letters follow the edition of Y. Azéma.. V. Ep. to Leo I.



of the Old Testament. The commentary on the Song of Songs beganthe series about the time of the council of Ephesus in ; and in aletter written in shortly before being deposed at the so-called

Robber Council of Ephesus, he could make the claim to have pro-duced expositions of “all the prophets, the psalter, and the apostle.” 4

Theodoret was rapidly reinstated by Pope Leo and went on to play aleading role in the convention of the council of Chalcedon in .He died about . 5

.

In this epistolary account of his biblical commentaries Theodo-ret does not mention any work on the Gospels, the Torah, or theFormer Prophets. While he seems never to have attempted the first,in his later years, Theodoret did treat the second, and the work of the chronicler as well. He devoted two series of Quaestiones to ob-scure passages of the Octateuch (Genesis to Ruth) and of Kingdomsand Chronicles ( Samuel through Chronicles).6 In both heclaimed to be responding to a request from his coadjutor bishopHypatius.7 He admits to feeling the effects of illness, an admissionnot found elsewhere in his commentaries. As well, his remarkssometimes suggest a disillusioned veteran; he laments endemicproblems of human society such as marital squabbling (Q. onGn) and frequent homicides (ib. Q. ). In the opening of the com-

mentary on Leviticus, he gives (Q. .) an overview of his literary

Introduction to Life and Works

xx

. Ep. , written to Eusebius of Ancyra.. For a more detailed account of Theodoret’s life and works, v. J.-N. Guinot,

“Theodoret von Kyrrhos,” TRE, vol. , pp. –.. N. Fernández Marcos and A. Sáenz-Badillos, Theodoreti Cyrensis Quaestiones

in octateuchum, TECC, vol. (Madrid ); N. Fernández Marcos and J.R. BustoSaiz, Theodoreti Cyrensis Quaestiones in Reges et Paralipomena, TECC, vol.

(Madrid ). The present edition and translation are based on the former.

. It is possible, of course, that such opening remarks were more conventionalthan factual; cf. sec. of the preface to Theodoret’s commentary on the Song of Songs.



output: “writings against the Greeks and the heretics, and.......thePersian magi, as well as.......expositions of the Old Testamentprophets and.......commentaries on the epistles of the apostle.” This

includes the last of the Christian apologies, comparing Greek andChristian philosophy, a lost work against the Persian magi, a com-pendium of heresies from Simon Magus to Nestorius and Eutyches,and all his exegetical works on the books of the Old Testament andthe epistles (kajn tai'" tw'n profhtw'n eJrmhneivai", kai; toi'" tw'najpostolikw`n ejpistolwn uJpomnhvmasin), but not the Gospels, of the New.8 The Questions , therefore, like a keystone, cap this remark-

able edifice completed less than a decade before his death.In the Questions on the Octateuch, Theodoret offers no commenton contemporary events apart from those odd melancholic remarksabout social mores. We can glean the occasional insight into con-temporary ecclesiastical life and practice from his discussions of thehistory of Israel and the institutions of Judaism. In Q. on Gene-sis, which deals with Joseph’s resuming the land of Egypt from all itscitizens with the exception of the priests, the bishop comments wry-ly, “The priests of the true God do not enjoy this privilege.” The is-sue of recompense for clerical services, dealt with in Q. on Num-bers, receives lengthy treatment by a cleric for whom it is apparently a burning issue. In Nm ., which prescribes the summoning of theassembly by a trumpet blast, but one that is to be given in such away as not to alarm the people, Theodoret sees a distinction akin tothe differing degrees of explicitness of teaching imparted to the ini-

tiated and to the uninitiated in Christian communities.Theodoret’s readers evidently belong to the former category of

the faithful.9 He imagines that, in their Christian formation, they

Circumstances of Composition of the Questions

xxi

. G. Bardy (“La littérature patristique,” RB []) finds in this statementmore precise evidence for the actual date of the Questions . He claims (p. ) thatTheodoret’s anti-heretical work (Haereticarum fabularum compendium) could nothave been written before , but J.-N. Guinot (L’Exégèse ) is less definite, placing

the date (p. ) of that work “about .”. One wonders if Theodoret envisaged women among the readers of this or

his other works. On rare occasions he makes remarks that the modern reader



may have encountered critics of this part of the Bible or been puz-zled by apparent narrative or factual discrepancies. So he declares inhis preface that he is intent on dealing with both sorts of problems:

“Now, to begin with, you should know that not all inquirers sharethe same purpose. Some inquire irreverently, believing they findholy Scripture wanting, in some cases, not teaching right doctrine,in others, giving conflicting instructions. In contrast, others, long-ing to find an answer for their question, search because they lovelearning.” Highlighting the ill-will of carping critics, Theodoret isthinking of Marcionites among others. But it is possible that he is

also referring even to his fellow Antiochene commentators Diodoreand Theodore, who may have had reservations about the canonicity of Ruth, a book for which there is no extant patristic commentary beyond these Questions.10 As the commentator paraphrases thewhole of this book, we may infer that many of his readers were notfamiliar with the text, despite its christologically significant appen-dix.11 We shall examine below how sound an introduction to theOctateuch these readers received from Theodoret’s three hundredand sixty-nine questions.12

. ’

Theodoret read the Octateuch in his local Greek version. In anoften-quoted passage of his letter to Sunnia and Fretela, Jerome hadidentified one of the different forms of the Greek Bible he knew to

be current in his time as the “vulgate”; this recension, the one in usein Antioch-Constantinople, was also known as the “Lucianic text,”


xxii

might regard as sexist. For example, he sees (Q. . on Gn) no place for woman inany prelapsarian design, “since an immortal nature does not require the female.”She owed her place to death and the need for procreation.

. V. note to Q. on Ruth.. V. Mt. .– and Lk .–, where the genealogy of Jesus includes the line

from Boaz to David detailed in Ruth .–.. These are divided as follows : on Gn, on Ex, on Lv, on Nm, on

Dt, on Jos, on Jgs, on Ruth.



for it was said to have been a revision of the Septuagint by Lucian of Antioch, a scholar-priest of the third century.13 The nature of Lu-cian’s work has long been a topic of debate. 14 It was precisely be-

cause Theodoret’s citations could help answer the question of whether it is possible to identify a distinctively Lucianic or Antioch-ene text throughout the Octateuch that Natalio Fernández Marcosand Angel Sáenz-Badillos decided to produce their critical edition.15

They concluded () that a typically Antiochene text does emergein the last three books, if not in the Torah,16 and in the revised edi-tion of The Septuagint in Context, Fernández Marcos restated this

conclusion some twenty years later (). There he argued that, forthe books of Joshua–Ruth, one can identify a group of manuscriptsthat agree with Theodoret’s citations in a range of peculiar featuressome of which predate Lucian while others are post-Hexaplaric. Inhis discussion of these characteristics, which are found in different

Theodoret’s Biblical Text

xxiii

. V. Ep. .: admoneo, ut sciatis aliam esse editionem, quam Origenes et Cae-sariensis Eusebius, omnesque Graeciae tractatores Koinhvn , id est, “communem” ap-

pellant, atque “Vulgatam”, et a plerisque nunc Loukiavneio~ dicitur; v. J. Labourt,Saint Jérôme, Lettres.

. P. Kahle (The Cairo Genizah ), had argued (pp. –) that there never was asingle original Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Instead several inde-pendent translations would have been assembled independently in different con-texts as demanded by liturgical necessity, in a process parallel to the production of the Aramaic targums. One of these Greek translations would have been made atAntioch before the version that came to be known as the “Septuagint” was pro-duced in Alexandria. This Antiochene version would have been revised by Lucianwith reference to Hebrew sources. Though Fernández Marcos admits (p. ) thatthe Septuagint is itself, not a translation, but a “collection of translations,” he rejectsKahle’s theory of a number of independent Greek translations of the Hebrew Scrip-tures; v. The Septuagint in Context, pp. –. For him, therefore, the question of theLucianic recension regards Lucian’s alleged revision of the LXX rather than of an-other translation independently produced in Antioch.

. V. N. Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context, p. : “To remove thisdifficulty [of determining the nature of the Lucianic recension of the Octateuch],we decided to edit critically Theodoret’s Quaestiones in octateuchum.”

. V. their edition of the Quaest. in oct., pp. LX–LXII and N. Fernández Mar-

cos, The Septuagint in Context, pp.

; also cf. p. LX of the edition, where they seem prepared to recognize at least the traces of an Antiochene recension in sometexts of the book of Dt.



degrees in different books, he remains chary of attributing any toLucian’s intervention.17 In addition, there are distinctive, if not typi-cally Antiochene, readings in Theodoret’s text of other books; I dis-

cuss some of the more significant in notes to the translation.18

The distinctiveness of the LXX vis à vis the Masoretic, the stan-dard Hebrew text, is particularly evident in the books of Joshua andJudges. The former appears in a notably shorter form in the LXX and consequently in Theodoret’s Antiochene text. In Judges, theGreek recensions are quite divergent among themselves. In the fam-ily of manuscripts associated with the codex vaticanus of the mid-

fourth century, conventionally designated by the siglum B, this book appears in a recension in which the LXX was adapted to the form of the Hebrew text circulating in Palestine in the first century .. Inmanuscripts related to the British Library’s codex alexandrinus of the fifth century, known as A, the Greek text closely resembles thatof the LXX transcribed by the third-century scholar Origen in hisHexapla.19 The Antiochene text used by Theodoret, closer through-out to A than to B, represents a third recension, which FernándezMarcos regards as the closest of the three to the translation of Judges originally incorporated into the LXX.20 In the Antiochene re-cension as in the others, we occasionally find, as in the “Song of Deborah” (Jgs ), the most archaic passage of the Hebrew Bible,mere transliterations of Hebrew words that proved too challengingfor the translators.


xxiv

. N. Fernández Marcos, The Septuagint in Context,

pp.

–

.. The editors of the volumes dealing with the Octateuch in the Ancient Chris-tian Commentary on Scripture under the general editorship of T.C. Oden (Down-ers Grove, Ill. –) ought, therefore, to acknowledge the variety of Septuagintalforms used in their citations of the Greek fathers. They might also include refer-ence to Diodore of Tarsus in their “Biographical Sketches,” where Diodore’s influ-ential work on the Octateuch (v. note below) is not cited, and Theodore is mis-takenly listed as “founder of the Antiochene, or literalistic, school of exegesis.”

. V. K.G. O’Connell’s “Greek Versions of the Old Testament,” pp. f. for avery brief account of the Greek uncial manuscripts and ib., pp. f. for a summa-

ry discussion of Origen’s Hexapla.. V. The Septuagint in Context, pp. f. As the Göttingen Academy of Scienceshas not yet published an edition of the book of Judges, Theodoret’s citations of



Of course, like all the fathers except Jerome, Theodoret lacks thelinguistic tools that would enable him to read the original text of theOT,21 and whenever he deals with Hebrew terms, his efforts fall

short. His text of Ex . reading, “You shall not revile gods,”prompts an obvious question () about the plural. He could havesolved the issue quite simply had he been able to comment on theHebrew ’elohim, here wrongly rendered in the plural by the LXX.Instead, he cites the more difficult case of Ps ., where God is pre-sented as presiding over the council of the gods of the nations. Onthe other hand, in his commentary on the Psalms, where Ex . is

cited as parallel to Ps ., he had insisted that in both cases “judges”are intended. Similarly, while discussing the significance of Passoverfor Jews and Christians (Q. . on Ex), he attempts to provide anaccurate rendition of the Hebrew pesach (a term of doubtful ety-mology) based on the interpretations of a range of Jewish authori-ties: Philo, Theodotion, and the historian Josephus. He finds thattheir Greek translations of this term differ considerably, and beingin no position to evaluate them, notes only that the event signifiesthe salvation of the firstborn of the Hebrews. His industry as an ex-egete is not matched by his linguistic skills.

Yet, Theodoret possesses philological resources to clarify an ob-scure text, though, in fact, he enlists their aid less frequently than inthe subsequent series of Questions on Kings and Chronicles. First,

Theodoret’s Biblical Text

xxv

that book have been checked against Rahlfs’ pocket edition of the Septuagint,which provides a transcription of both codices A and B. In my ap. font., I do notspecify which strand of the tradition offers a reading found in Theodoret’sQuaestt. The reader should compare both the Greek texts provided by Rahlfs withthat of Theodoret. For discussion of points of contact and difference betweenTheodoret’s text and that offered by the alexandrinus and the vaticanus in the book of Judges, v. note to Q. ; n. to Q. ; n. to Q. ; n. to Q. ; n. to Q. ; n. toQ. ; and nn. f. to Q. .

. Of the Antiochene fathers, only Theodore of Mopsuestia claimed someknowledge of Hebrew; on his limitations, v. my translation of Theodore of Mop-suestia: Commentary on the Twelve Prophets, p. and note . As to Origen, H.

Crouzel declares (p.

): “Certainly it would be wrong to credit Origen with aknowledge of Hebrew like Jerome’s, but he must have had enough to direct thecompilation of the Hexapla, even if the actual work was done by some assistant.”



though unfamiliar with Hebrew, Theodoret has the advantage of being a native speaker of Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic, and in some of his more formal commentaries he exploits this asset to advantage.22

In this work, on the contrary, he invokes it only once (Q. on Jgs):to throw light on the dialectal diversity in pronunciation of the He-brew term shibboleth when Jephthah (Jgs .–) detects fugitives of Ephraim by their pronunciation of the initial sibilant.

More importantly, whether directly or through the citations of others, he had some information regarding other Greek translationsof the Bible.23 Thus, in Q. on Leviticus, he is able to cite “some

translators” who offer a different term for the monetary value of sac-rificial animals stated in Lv .–. He mentions Aquila, Sym-machus, and Theodotion by name.24 When at Jgs . the Hebrew text reports that Caleb’s daughter Achsah requested “irrigated land”for her husband, the LXX confuses that term with a similar one for“redemption.” Unable to account for the confusion by reference tothe original, Theodoret shrewdly turns to Symmachus for an alterna-tive translation. At times, the commentator, always anxious to pro-vide his readers with full information, goes to excess in citing theseother versions. In Q. . on Leviticus, where the burnt offering of birds (.) figures in a long account of Jewish sacrifices, he remarks,“Now, for ‘crop’ (provlobon) Theodotion put ‘gullet’ and Aquila‘feeder.’ It receives the food and conveys it to the rest of the body;hence, the Septuagint calls it ‘crop’ (provlobon) as it takes in(proslambavnousan) the food.” We suspect his readers would have

regarded this anatomical detail, let alone the range of translations, asotiose.


xxvi

. V. P. Canivet, Histoire d’une entreprise, pp. f.. Guinot denies (pp. –, –, –) that Theodoret had access either

to Origen’s Hexapla or to a copy of the recension of the LXX included in the Hexa- pla.

. For Aquila, v. Qq. , , , , , . on Gn; on Ex; , . on Lv; on Dt; on Jos; for Symmachus, Qq. on Gn , .; f., , on Ex; . on Lv; ,. on Nm; , . on Dt; . on Jos; , on Jgs; for Theodotion, Qq. on Gn;

on Lv; v. K.G. O’Connell,“Greek Versions of the Old Testament,” for a brief intro-duction (p. ) to the versions of Aquila and Symmachus and the questions sur-rounding the identity of Theodotion.



. ’

It is at the end of his life, of his episcopal ministry, and of two

decades of exegetical work, or at least commentary,25 that Theodoretcomes to deal with the the Torah and the Former Prophets. Here, aselsewhere, we note his fundamental understanding of the inspiredWord as a divine gesture of condescension to man, what Chrysostomhad called sugkatavbasi" and Origen sumperiforav.26 In Q. onGenesis dealing with the key notion of human beings created inGod’s “image” (.f.), before canvassing the views of his predeces-

sors, Theodoret brusquely rejects those that present any anthropo-morphic notion of God: “These simpletons fail to understand thatthe Lord God, when speaking to humans through humans, adjustshis language to the limitations of the listeners.” The principle, of course, is vital for commentary, especially on this part of the Bible, if the commentator is not to adopt a fundamentalist stance.27 Anotherprinciple basic to an Antiochene is recognition of the aim or intent(skopov") of Scripture and of individual books.28 In accordance withthis rule, he dismisses what he considers an “over-curious” question(Q. on Gn) regarding the precise time of the creation of the angels:“I shall state what I believe is in keeping with the purpose of holy Scripture.”

Theodoret’s Approach to Scripture

xxvii

. The distinction of J.N.D. Kelly (Golden Mouth, p. ), is apposite: “NeitherJohn, nor any Christian teacher for centuries to come, was properly equipped to

carry out exegesis as we have come to understand it.”. V. R.C. Hill, “On looking again at synkatabasis,”pp. – and B. Vawter, Bib-

lical Inspiration, p. .. F.M. Young (Biblical Exegesis ), attributes (pp. f.) the Antiochenes’ em-

phasis on rhetorical aspects of biblical language to their education in rhetoricalschools; John Chrysostom and probably Theodore of Mopsuestia, as well, werepupils of Libanius.

. Young (ib., pp. f.) points out that both the Alexandrians and the Anti-ochenes looked for the skopov~ of a scriptural passage. Origen and his followershad located this intent “at the level of the inspiring Spirit” so that “consistency

lay .......in the deeper spiritual realities to which the text referred,” while the Anti-ochenes regarded the aim of a scriptural passage as that of the literary author andtherefore tried to respect the consistency of wording and narrative development.



Though at this stage of his life he lacks the strength to complete acommentary on the full text of the Genesis through Ruth, Theodo-ret remains an Antiochene and is alert to detail in the verses cited by

the questioner.29 Precision (ajkrivbeia) is a virtue not only in the sa-cred text but also in its commentator and reader, though the virtuecan become a vice. Taking his cue from a question regarding Caleb’schoice of Hebron for his inheritance (Q. on Jos .), the com-mentator launches into a digression to remove what might seem tobe a chronological discrepancy in the years of wandering: the forty-five mentioned by Caleb in Jos . and the thirty-eight years of Dt

.. This is the sort of digression the genre tolerates.Theodoret appreciates biblical imagery and is not loath to expli-cate it for his readers; he can also improve on the author’s with effec-tive imagery of his own. Responding to Q. on Numbers, Theodo-ret first mentions the simile comparing Moses’ relationship to thepeople to that of a mother nursing a babe (Nm .f.). He then pro-ceeds to the appointment of the seventy elders, who are to assist thelawgiver without diminishing his powers, and in his comment ad-duces both a striking image and a sacramental parallel (.): “Now,the sequence of events confirms that, by giving some to the seventy,God had not diminished Moses’ grace, for he continued to performthe same functions and work wonders as he had done before. Just as,from a single taper, one can light countless others and, without di-minishing it, share its light with the rest, so the God of the universeshared Moses’ grace with the seventy without lessening the grace

that had already been granted to him. We see this happening eventoday when countless people are baptized by one priest and receivethe divine gift without diminishing the priest’s grace, and greatnumbers are appointed by the high priests and receive priestly officewithout lessening the gift of the man who appointed them.” Afterexpounding the biblical metaphor of the suckling child, Theodoret


xxviii

. V. R.C. Hill, “Akribeia,”pp. –, where I argue that the term, though oftenrendered “accuracy,” means rather “precision.” The Antiochenes, though generally precise, are not always accurate in their treatment of scriptural detail.



supplies an equally effective simile of his own: the wick that lightsother lamps, which he further develops with reference to the Chris-tian rites of baptism and priestly ordination.

In this work, as ever, Theodoret shows himself “moderate” in hisassessment of previous views.30 Where no decisive factor is involved,he can leave his readers to make their own choice. After relayingfrom Diodore two explanations for Abraham’s division of the vic-tims sacrificed in the covenant rite of Gn .f., he concludes(Q. ), “I cite this view and the other for readers to take whicheverstrikes them as closer to the truth.” In a similar manner, he some-

times expresses a commendable diffidence regarding his own inter-pretations. When the questioner presses him on that sensitive issueof the creation of the angels, he explicitly indicates that he can do nomore than hazard an opinion on a question that does not admit of aconclusive answer (Q. . on Gn): “Now, I do not state this dogmat-ically, my view being that it is rash to speak dogmatically where holy Scripture does not make an explicit statement; rather, I have statedwhat I consider to be consistent with orthodox thought.”

Again, as in other works, Theodoret sometimes evinces knowl-edge of the practices and beliefs of Judaism. In Q. on Exodus heshows he is aware that the feasts of Pentecost and Tabernacles wereoriginally agricultural but came to commemorate historical events.In the course of a long discussion of the tabernacle and its furnish-ings (ib. Q. ), he speaks with understanding of the Jewish usage of the tetragrammaton (.).

Like his fellow Antiochenes, Theodoret desires principally thathis readers understand the biblical text; only on occasion does heconsider its ethical implications for daily life.31 See, for example, hiscomment on Gn . (“Everyone’s thoughts in his heart were focusedon evil his whole life long”). On this verse that, as G. von Rad de-

Theodoret’s Approach to Scripture

xxix

. It is G. Bardy who pays this compliment to Theodoret as commentator; v.

“Interprétation,” p. .. In his homilies Chrysostom evinces a more pastoral approach that consti-

tutes an exception to this general practice of the Antiochenes.



clares, has “programmatic significance.......for the entire Yahwisticprimeval history,” a moral comment is certainly not out of order.32

In the lengthy response to Q. on the animal sacrifices described in

the opening chapters of Leviticus, he tentatively ventures into theethical and parenetic: “I do not think I am out of order in remarkingthat those who offer themselves to God resemble the various animalvictims. Those who embrace a life free of possessions and worriesdevote themselves wholly to the God of the universe and turn them-selves into holocausts and whole victims; they put aside nothing forthis life but transfer everything to the life eternal” (.). The com-

mentator proceeds to compare other sacrifices to other Christianstates of life.We have observed that Theodoret, who may not have imagined

that women would read his work, makes the occasional misogynistcomment. His argument can also tend to the detriment of thewomen when he makes every effort to uphold the reputation of pa-triarchs and other male leaders. We might refer, for instance, to hisdefense of Abraham’s conduct in the court of King Abimelech of Gerar (Q. )33 and his justification of Abraham’s treatment of Ha-gar (Q. ).

. ’

Of course, the books of the Octateuch had long been studied andcommented on by eastern Jews and Christians. Genesis had received

the widest attention; its non-Antiochene interpreters included Phi-lo, Origen, Didymus the Blind, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa,and Cyril of Alexandria. Philo had also written on Exodus; Origenon Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Joshua, and Judges; Cyril on Exo-dus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy; and Gregory of Nyssa


xxx

. Genesis, p. .. In hom. . on Gn . Chrysostom adopts the same attitude to Abraham

and Sarah.



on Exodus and Numbers.34 Of the Antiochenes, Diodore of Tarsushad produced a series of questions on the Octateuch, and Chrysos-tom two sets of homilies on Genesis, while Theodore of Mopsuestia

had commented on at least Genesis, and perhaps Exodus, Joshua,and Judges as well.35 From the Questions on the Octateuch, J.-N.Guinot has collected forty-six cases where Theodoret apparently al-luded to such works by the general form of reference, “There arethose who say.”36 Having painstakingly sifted these allusions, he con-cludes that in the Questions on Genesis, Theodoret did make con-siderable direct use of at least Theodore’s commentary and Chrys-

ostom’s homilies. But for the subsequent references to previousexpositors and even for those to commentators on Genesis otherthan Theodore and Chrysostom, Theodoret, in the great majority of instances, drew from the questions composed by the early Antioch-ene exegete Diodore of Tarsus. Indeed, in books other than Genesis,Theodoret’s allusions to previous exegetes are far fewer. The Ques-tions on Exodus and Leviticus each contain only about half asmany.37 Very infrequent in the Questions on Numbers, Joshua, andRuth, there are none at all in the Questions on Deuteronomy andJudges. Diodore had himself drawn from Eusebius of Emesa,38 andthough Guinot admits that Theodoret made some direct use of Eu-sebius, he argues from a collation of the available evidence that sim-

Sources of Theodoret’s Exegesis

xxxi

. For Philo’s exegesis of Gn, v. R. Marcus, Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis; for Origen’s exegesis of books of the Octateuch, v. Quasten, vol. , pp. ,

; for Didymus’ commentary on Gn, v. P. Nautin and L. Doutreleau, Didyme L’Aveugle sur la Genèse; for Basil’s Hex., v. Quasten, vol. , pp. –; for Gregory’sHom. opif., Expl. apol. in hex., and V. Mos., v. ib., pp. –; for Cyril’s Ador. andGlaph. Gn-Dt, v. ib., pp. f.

. For Diodore’s works, v. J. Deconinck, Essai sur la chaîne, etc.; for Chrysos-tom’s Hom. and Hom. in Gn., v. Quasten, vol. , p. ; for Theodore’s com-mentaries, whose extent remains unclear, v. Devreesse, Essai, pp. – and Guinot(L’Exégèse, note , p. ), who regard only the work on Genesis as sufficiently at-tested, and cf. Quasten, vol. , pp. f.

. e.g., Q. on Gn: fasiv tine~

. Guinot catalogues (L’Exégèse, pp. –) twenty allusions to earlier exegesisin the Questions on Gn, eleven in the Questions on Ex, eight in the Questions on Lv.. V. R. Devreesse, Les anciens commentateurs, etc.



ilarities between the expositions of Theodoret and Eusebius areusually to be explained by Diodore’s mediation. Thus, Theodoretwould have received much of this information at second, and some

even at third, hand; only rarely, outside the Questions on Genesis,can he be credited with drawing from the work of any predecessorother than Diodore.39

. :

Imbued with such exegetical predispositions—some shared withother Antiochenes, others peculiar to himself—and relying on thesesources, Theodoret undertakes the task of clarifying for his readersdoubtful points (zhthvmata) of the Octateuch and rebutting criti-cisms of Scripture made by malicious adversaries. Experience hastaught him that “careless reading of holy Scripture is the cause of er-ror among ordinary people” (Q. . on Gn), and in the incident of the unauthorized offering of unholy fire by Nadab and Abihu (Lv .–.) he finds a warning to avoid novelty. “These events teachus not to quench the Spirit but to rekindle the grace we have re-ceived, not to introduce anything foreign into holy Scripture but tobe content with the teaching of the Spirit, and to abhor heretics,some of whom have combined their mythological fables with thedivine oracles, while others have preferred their own unholy notionsto the sense of Scripture” (Q. on Lv). Thus, the commentator

should aim at no more than to clarify the obscure as he promises todo in the preface to the entire work.40 With God’s help he will unveilthe meaning (diavnoia) hidden in the text (gravmma) just as Jesushad explained in more direct terms the statements expressed in rid-dling fashion (aijnigmatwdw ") in his parables.

In his wish to complete an exegetical project begun decades be-


xxxii

. Guinot (L’Exégèse ), pp. –, esp. –.. He makes the same promise in his first commentary, that on the Song of

Songs (on .).



fore, Theodoret has chosen for comment on the Octateuch andKingdoms and Chronicles a different genre, namely, that of Ques-tions.41 This genre would dispense the ailing scholar from com-

menting on the whole text. As we see in other examples, ancient andmodern, it allows the author to restrict his attention to challengingpassages that might puzzle the reader:42 hence the terms ta; a[poraand ta; zhtouvmena traditionally included in the two titles.43 In hispreface to the Questions on the Octateuch Theodoret claims to be joining the ranks of those who have promised to solve apparentproblems: ta; dokou'nta ei\nai zhthvmata.44 In the east, practition-

ers of this sort of exegesis included Philo, Eusebius, Theodoret, and,in the ninth century, Photius; in west, it was initiated by Jerome andAugustine and taken up by numerous medieval authors.

This was not an exclusively Christian genre. In fact, the earliestsuch works were devoted to the explication of the Homeric poems.45

Sophists and rhetors as well as Stoics interested in casuistry andmoral conundrums employed the format of question and answer.

The Genre of Questions

xxxiii

. Theodoret’s work on Jeremiah may likewise show signs of a forced effort toround off his commentary on the prophetic corpus of the Bible. Though Guinotexpresses doubt as to Theodoret’s authorship of this work (L’Exégèse, note , p.

and p. ), v. my outline of the manuscript tradition and the character of thiscommentary in the introduction to Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on Jeremiah.

. On the other hand, from the treatment of – Chr, where Theodoret simply abandons question-and-answer form and settles for simple paraphrase, one couldargue that his basic aim was commentary / paraphrase, and that he found it moretaxing to recast the text into individual questions.

. Though Fernández Marcos and Sáenz-Badillios print no title to their edi-tion of the Quaest. in oct. (note above), titles containing the term a[pora appearin at least several of the manuscripts as well as in the editions of Picot and Schulze;v. the ap. crit. ad loc. The term zhthvmata occurs in the introduction to the Quaest.in oct, and ta; zhtouvmena in the title of the Questions on Kingdoms and Chronicles printed by Fernández Marcos and Busto Saiz (note above).

. The word “apparent” signals a necessary qualification that Jerome alsomakes in his Pf. in hom. Origenis in Ez., where he says that Origen addressed ea quae sibi videbantur obscura aut habere aliquid difficultatis; v. M. Borret, Origène,Homélies sur Ézéchiel.

. G. Bardy (“La littérature patristique,” RB

[

]) points out (p.

) thevery early use of this form by commentators on Homer, “the inexhaustible source

of puzzles.”



This format naturally found a place in academic instruction andwould eventually provide the framework for catechisms.

The issues dealt with in the biblical treatises were chosen by the

commentator or taken over from a predecessor. The questioner wasmerely a fictional device for the selection of texts to receive com-ment or of apparent discrepancies to be resolved. Many of Theodo-ret’s questions deal with issues of detail, but others provide the im-petus for an extensive essay. For example, the apparently ingenuousQ. on Exodus, “Why did God command the construction of thetabernacle?” is the cue for a comprehensive account of the design

and furnishings of the tabernacle and of the accoutrements of thepriests described in Ex –.46

At times, the questions reproduce criticism of the sacred text thatcalls for rebuttal. Such criticism might regard apparent contradic-tions of fact within Scripture. Why is Moses’ father-in-law calledReuel in Nm . but Jethro in earlier passages (Q. on Nm; cf.Ex. .; . and . and Q. on Jgs)? At other times, the criticismbears on the goodness, justice, and omniscience of the God of theOld Testament. How could the consumption of a morsel of illicitfood merit the terrible punishment inflicted on Adam and Eve andtheir posterity (Q. on Gn)? Should not God have prevented theslaughter of Jephthah’s daughter (Q. on Jgs)? In Q. on Gn,Theodoret denies that God tested Abraham to learn whether or nothe would obey his command to sacrifice Isaac. Sometimes, the criti-cism calls into question the morality of a biblical hero. Thus (Q.

on Gn), Theodoret defends Abraham from the charge of cruelty fordriving off Hagar and the infant Ishmael, and Gideon (Q. on Jgs)against the charge of introducing idol worship. As for Samson, if hedid not observe the dietary restrictions of a nazirite, that was be-cause these had become obsolete (Q. on Jgs).

On occasion, the questions may strike a reader as trivial, as


xxxiv

. Theodoret may here depend on Theodore of Mopsuestia. R. Devreesse sug-gests (Essai, p. , note ) that Theodore included similar material in his commen-tary on the Epistle to the Hebrews.



though seeking to elicit insignificant information or posing a falseconundrum. Q. on Exodus asks how Pharaoh’s daughter knew thatbaby Moses was a Hebrew.“Through circumcision,” the commenta-

tor retorts, since he believes that the Egyptians learned this practicefrom the Hebrews (Q. on Gn). Q. on Genesis asks how Potiphar, a eunuch, had a wife.47 One may suspect that other far-fetched questions are posed to introduce variety and entertainment.In Q. on Genesis, Theodoret tries to identify the material used asmortar for the Tower of Babel. Q. on Exodus—“What kind of wood was it that sweetened the water in Marah”—evinces the same

interest in oddities of natural history. In Q. on Exodus, after skip-ping without comment over the last seven commandments of theDecalogue, he pauses to consider what must have seemed a strangeHebrew law enjoining the piercing of the ear of a bondsman whochooses to abide with his master rather than go free.

Others seem calculated to provide an opportunity for commen-tary on present-day circumstances. The question ( on Ex) “Whatis the meaning of ‘You shall not appear before the Lord your Godempty-handed?’” (Ex .), receives an answer that suggests it wasincluded for the ethical instruction of readers both in the world andin religious life: “When you go to worship the Lord God, offer giftsin accordance with your means. This verse teaches us, if we havemoney, to pray to God with the care of the needy, or, if we opt for alife of poverty, to approach God with a soul that is not empty of good things but wealthy in virtue.” By and large, however, the ques-

tions address issues of substance that the commentator reckonsamong the puzzles of Scripture (zhthvmata), often because they were the subject of debate by his predecessors.48

Of course, given his limited philological and historical skills,Theodoret is often unable to settle these issues in a way that wouldplease modern scholars. Unable to point to Hebrew usages or to the

The Genre of Questions

xxxv

. In Gn

., the LXX’s eujnou' co" does not accurately render the Hebrew.. As we have seen, the work of Diodore would be Theodoret’s principal

source for these earlier debates; v. sec. above.



redactional history of these complex documents, he often has re-course to little more than a process of rationalization. For example,when the questioner asks (Q. on Gn), “Why did the angel wrestle

with Jacob?” (.), the commentator, unaware of aetiologies lyingbehind the names Israel and Penuel, opines, “To give Jacob confi-dence when he was afraid of his brother. For the same reason he also yielded him the victory, as if to say, ‘How can you fear a mere mortalafter defeating me?’’’

Nonetheless, one of Theodoret’s great strengths is his willingnessto provide the less advanced reader with a plethora of relevant and

illuminating historical, linguistic, and cultural information. In thishe is superior to Theodore. For instance, he goes to trouble to speci-fy in his readers’ terms the sum of money required by Lv . for thecash replacement of prescribed offerings (Q. on Lv). As in his oth-er works, he identifies geographical and topographical references. Hecan tell his reader that the town mentioned in Jgs . was oncecalled Leshem and is “now called Paneas” (Q. on Jgs). This sort of information made a narrative of the distant past more meaningfulfor his readers. As we have noted, it is particularly in the Octateuchthat he can bring his extensive knowledge of Judaism to the fore.

A modern reader would naturally evaluate this genre by the de-gree to which it places the reader in touch with the key concerns of the text and its author(s). Are the items chosen of real significance?Are there regrettable omissions? Generally speaking, the questionsallow comprehensive coverage of key issues in the Octateuch. There

are only two questions on Ruth, but each receives lengthy responses.The first addresses the reasons for the composition of the work. Itcovers Ruth’s place in the genealogy of Jesus (Mt .) and thus, whatTheodoret understands as the christological character of the book.If Theodoret does not discuss the lists of kings and allotments of land that bulk so large in the book of Joshua, it is probably in orderto avoid wearying his readers.49 On the other hand, he does not


xxxvi

. In Hom. . in Is. . (in illud, Vidi dominum), Chrysostom reports thatsome readers of Scripture, when reproached for skipping over chronological no-



shirk even Moses’ blessings of the tribes of Israel (Dt ), a poemthat is obscure in the Hebrew and even more so in the LXX. It is alsonoticeable that texts that might seem sensational, such as the sun

stopping in its course in Jos .f., do not attract particular atten-tion. Modern readers might well regret his delicate omission of theharrowing tale of the abuse of the Levite’s concubine in Jgs .–.50 Regrettably, in both Exodus and Deuteronomy he omits com-ment on the last seven commandments of the Decalogue. On bal-ance, however, one would say that this genre allowed an ailingTheodoret to expound his position on the key questions facing a

reader of the Octateuch.

. ’

Though Theodoret does not employ the term, we know that “Oc-tateuch” was used in the early Church to designate the first eightbooks of the Bible.51 The grouping is evidently customary for him,whereas a pentateuchal collection is not; he moves from Deuterono-my to Joshua without comment on Dt , which records the death of Moses and the mystery surrounding his tomb, and without remark on any change of authorship. In fact, unlike that of a modern work,his preface includes no general introductory treatment of the au-thorship or of the literary and theological unity of the corpus that heis about to introduce to his readers. This is true also of his commen-tary on the Pauline epistles. In this approach he differs from the

more critical Diodore and his servile disciple Theodore. On occa-sion, he evinces exegetical concerns similar to those of Chrysostom,who viewed the Scriptures as a moralizing and hagiographical text.52

Thus, though also admitting the christological import of Ruth,

Theodoret’s Position on the Octateuch

xxxvii

tices or catalogues of names, would allege in self-justification, “This passage is justnames and contains nothing of value”; v. J. Dumortier, Homélies sur Ozias.

. V. P. Trible, Texts of Terror, pp. – and note to Q. on Jgs.

. V. O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament, p. . Nor does Theodoret speak of “Pentateuch” or “Torah.”. V. R.C. Hill, “His Master’s Voice,” pp. –.



Theodoret remarks that this book would be worthy of inclusion inthe canon solely on the basis of its ethical teaching: “[T]his narrativeis sufficient of itself to offer great benefit to those who know how to

profit by it” (Q. .).53 Likewise, he interprets in a moralizing fashionpassages where we find aetiological and doctrinal concerns, e.g. thename Gad, given to one of Jacob’s sons in Gn . (Q. ), Rachel’stheft of the household gods in Gn . (Q. ), and Tamar’s ruse tosecure a levirate marriage in Gn (Q. ).

Of course, neither Theodoret nor his contemporaries envisagedanything similar to the documentary hypothesis of the Pentateuch

given classic form by Julius Wellhausen in the late nineteenth centu-ry.54 Nonetheless, he presents Moses, the putative author of thosebooks, in various literary roles: not only as lawgiver (nomoqevth")and prophet (profhvth"), but also as historian (suggrafeuv", e.g.,Qq . , , , on Gn) or chronicler (iJstoriograv fo", Q. on Gn).Could the use of these latter terms, which can be applied to one whocollects information from various sources or even composes a nar-rative on the basis of pre-existing materials, betray some inkling of multiple authorship for sections of Gn–Dt? Probably not. While thiseastern commentator regards the distinctively anthropomorphiclanguage used in what we now call “the Yahwistic history” as a po-tential stumbling block, he limits himself to dispelling possible mis-apprehensions as they arise. He denies that Moses could have seenGod, as is claimed in Ex .– (Q. on Ex), or that the Lordand accompanying angels ate a meal in Abraham’s tent (Q. on Gn

). In his discussion of the title “Deuteronomy,” Theodoret rejects(Q. . on Dt) the notion that this could refer to a second law and, in


xxxviii

. Cf. Chrys., Hom. . in Gen.: “The Holy Spirit has graciously left us a writ-ten account in holy Scripture of the biographies and way of life of all the saints sothat we may learn that men who had the same nature as ourselves succeeded inperforming virtuous deeds of every sort and not be slack in striving for virtue our-selves.”

.Wellhausen offered what became a very influential statement of this hy-

pothesis in his Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. For a brief orientation to the dif-ferent documentary strands combined to form the Pentateuch, v., e.g., the intro-ductions to the commentaries on Gn by E.A. Speiser and G. von Rad.



a literalistic manner, argues that the book “contains a summary of the legislation and the events of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers”for those who had grown up in the wilderness. Again, there are more

curses than blessings in Dt f., not because of an interpolation orthe impact of the exile on a Deuteronomistic editor, but because“forwicked servants promises of freedom are not so beneficial as threatsof chastisement” (Q. ). Balaam’s changes of heart in Nm – arelikewise not due to any difference in authorship (Qq. –).

Therefore, it is not surprising that Theodoret evinces no aware-ness of the diverse concerns of the documentary strands subsumed

into our present text. Like Chrysostom he regards Genesis .– asa summary recapitulating the major topics of ch. rather than as,what it is now known to be, an independent narrative of much ear-lier date. So, in his discussion of .– (Q. ), Theodoret tries to ex-plain the source of the water that irrigated earth before the begin-ning of rainfall by harmonizing details of two discordant traditions:the earth was irrigated by “moisture and humidity left over from thedivision of the waters.”55 Only once does he explicitly admit thatthere is a cultic basis for the rulings in Leviticus; this is in Q. ,where citing Lv . (“‘You will make the children of Israel bewaretheir uncleanness, and they will not die because of their uncleannessby defiling my tabernacle that is among them’”) he points to the re-lationship between the state of uncleanness and exclusion frompublic worship. Elsewhere (e.g., Qq. , , , .) he interpretsthese cultic regulations in an ethical sense. Furthermore, he does

not grasp the ethical significance of the historical preface (Ex .: “Iam the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt”)to the apodictic commandments of the Decalogue.

Theodoret’s Position on the Octateuch

xxxix

. Chrysostom thought that God had dictated this second narrative to under-line the major points of ch. and thus forestall the development of heresy in theChristian Church; cf. Hom. . in Gen. (on .–): “In his foreknowledge of thefuture, to prevent anyone born in subsequent generations from defying sacredScripture and captiously setting his own notions against the dogmas of the

Church, the Holy Spirit, after teaching us each step of the creation, here oncemore.......goes over each detail to stop the unbridled tongue of people spoiling todisplay their impudence.”



On the other hand, he is astute enough to recognize that the cre-ation story is no eye-witness report but a later theological reflectionthat takes account of and refines earlier efforts from the ancient

Near East. “Since the Egyptians used to worship the visible creation,and Israel, in their long association with them, had joined in thisidolatry, he had to set out the facts of creation and explicitly teachthem that it had a beginning of existence, and that the God of theuniverse was its Creator. Not that he passed over a treatment of thetrue doctrine of God (th~ qeologiva~). The statement that heavenand earth and the other parts of the universe were created and the

revelation that the God of the universe was their Creator provided atrue doctrine of God sufficient for people of that time” (Q. onGn). When the questioner asks to whom the Creator addressedcommands like “Let there be light” (Gn .), Theodoret replies, “Hewas not commanding anyone else to create but summoning thingsnot in existence, his will constituting a command” (Q. ). This reply closely resembles that of his modern counterpart von Rad: “Theidea of creation by the word preserves first of all the most radical es-sential distinction between Creator and creature.” 56

In fact, in numerous respects Theodoret’s interpretations matchthose of modern scholars. In Q. on Dt (., ), Theodoret ex-pounds on the insistence on a central sanctuary; he has well under-stood the author’s basic message: one God, one people, one temple.Likewise, at the close of Judges, Theodoret, surveying the structureof the book, notes, as do his modern counterparts, the function of

the final five chapters as an epilogue to the presentation of the indi-vidual judges.57 In the Questions on Genesis his discussions of the“signs” of . (Q. ), the garment of skins in . (Q. ), and thefate of Enoch in . (Q. ), all cruces interpretum, are endorsed by modern scholars.58

Furthermore, in Joshua and Judges, he develops a limited docu-


xl

. Genesis, p. .. V. note to Q. on Jgs.. V., e.g., von Rad, Genesis, pp. , , .



mentary hypothesis of his own. In Jos. . (Q. on Jos), whichrefers to the hero’s sovereign command to the sun, Theodoret’s An-tiochene recension of the LXX contained the question not found in

other forms of the LXX: “Is this not written in the book that wasfound?” The phrase “that was found” renders a Hebrew reference tothe book of Jashar, “the upright,” an ancient anthology, as Theodo-ret, despite his poor translation, is able to surmise. Explicitly distin-guishing between the historian (suggrafeuv") and the protagonistJoshua (profhvth"), he rightly concludes, “the author of the book of Joshua lived in a subsequent age and drew his source material

from that other book.”59

Similarly, from an apparent contradictionof fact, he infers a late date of composition for the book of Judges.At Jgs . it is said that the children of Judah took Jerusalem, where-as at Sm .– we read that David captured Jebus, later re-namedJerusalem. Having compared these passages, Theodoret concludes(Q. on Jgs), “I believe the composition of this book [Judges] is tobe dated to a later period [i.e., later than Samuel]. In support, Inote that the narrative refers to this city as ‘Jerusalem’; previously named ‘Jebus,’ it was only later that it received this name.” Only latein his exegetical career is Theodoret willing to acknowledge thecomplex processes that went into the formation of the biblical text.

.

As primary attention to the literal meaning (to; iJstorikovn) istypical of Antiochene biblical commentary even before Diodore,60

Theodoret as Interpreter of the Octateuch

xli

. Cf. his comment (Q. in Reg.) on the reference to the book of Jashar inSm ., where it is called “the book of Right (tou` eujqou~)”:“This is another indi-cation that the narrative of Kings was composed from many prophetic sources.” Atthe end of Q. . on Joshua (.) he may speak of “the history” ( hJ iJstoriva)rather than “the historian” (oJ suggrafeuv~) precisely to avoid a question of au-thorship.

. F.M. Young (Biblical Exegesis ) discusses (pp. f.) Eustathius’ earlier insis-tence on attending to “the coherence of narrative, both with itself and with the restof scripture”; cf. R.C. Hill, Reading the Old Testament, pp. –.



there is nothing new in Theodoret’s insistence on searching for andadhering to the facts, especially in this part of the Bible. “[W]eshould adhere to the facts of holy Scripture (th` / th~ qeiva~ grafh~

ajlhqeiva/),”61 he says in response to Q. on Exodus (.), wherehe weighs various interpretations of the parting of the sea. And hisinterpretation of the plagues is straightforwardly literalist. Likewise,as is apparent from his response to Q. about the serpent speakingto Eve, he takes the story of the Fall in Gn as a narrative of histori-cal fact. Though accepting the long-established view that the devilhad adopted the guise of the serpent, he is not prepared to interpret

the account as a theological reflection on the relationship betweenGod and man. Yet, in Q. . on Ex, the commentator reminds hisreaders that those who attend to no more than “the face value of thetext” (gumnw/ ` ......tw/ ` gravmmati) will not arrive at the full meaningof Scripture. There he argues that the Lord’s threat to punish thechildren of idolaters to the fourth generation (Ex .) requires in-terpretation by an inter-textual approach that draws on Ezekiel .

He assures his readers that a text may contain levels of meaning.When asked (Q. on Gn) about the tree of life and the tree of theknowledge of good and evil, he insists that they are real trees, butthat they also signify something further. “According to holy Scrip-ture, they also sprouted from the ground, so they had a nature nodifferent from that of other plants. Just as the tree of the cross was atree and is called ‘saving’ because salvation is accomplished by faithin it, so these trees were products of the soil. By divine decree the

one was called the ‘tree of life,’ the other, since the perception of sinoccurred in connection with it, ‘the tree of the knowledge of goodand evil.’ Adam was set a trial with regard to the latter, whereas thetree of life was proposed as his prize for keeping the commandment.Similarly, the patriarchs bestowed names on places and wells. They called one ‘well of vision,’ not because it granted the faculty of sight,


xlii

. V. C. Schäublin, Untersuchungen, p. : “The appeal to ‘reality,’ ajlhvqeia,constitutes the perhaps definitive element of Antiochene ‘historical’ interpreta-tion.”



but because the Lord of the universe was seen near it, and another‘well of broad places,’ because the people of Gerar, who had oftenfought over the other wells, did not interfere with those digging this

one. Likewise, there was a ‘well of the oath’ because people used toswear oaths nearby. And the name ‘Bethel’ or ‘House of God’ wasgiven to Luz, because that was where the Creator of the universe ap-peared to Jacob. There was a ‘hill of witness,’ not that the hill wasalive, but because that was where they made treaties with one anoth-er. Likewise baptism is called ‘living water,’ not because the water of baptism has a different nature, but because, through that water, di-

vine grace confers the gift of eternal life.” The interpretation movesfrom the literal to the eschatological, spiritual, and sacramental.62

As he addresses octateuchal material, the commentator requiresthis hermeneutical range so that he may alternately endorse, dis-allow, or re-interpret the institutions and practices of Judaism. Theprescriptions of Leviticus, in particular, call for this flexibility. InQ. Theodoret moves from the priests’ treatment of leprosy pre-scribed in .– to contemporary Church practice regarding pub-lic sinners. “Furthermore, the cup of oil signifies spiritual ointment.The application of the oil to the right ear, hand, and foot suggestsconfining one’s hearing to right words and one’s hand and foot toright actions. The application to the head suggests the dedication of one’s reason. But the person who remained leprous continued todwell outside the camp, just as the sinner who remains unrepentantis expelled from the Church.” This ready transposition sometimes

involves Theodoret in the error of finding an ethical explanation forpractices that were originally pragmatic and hygienic. For example,consider his comment (Q. ) on the law (ch. ) declaring sufferersof gonorrhea unclean: “I have already said that, through the physi-cal, it gives instruction in moral, defects and conveys through the


xliii

. Such hermeneutical breadth is at variance with the adherence shown by,e.g., Theodore to the maxim, received through Diodore and Libanius and tradi-

tionally attributed to Aristarchus, of “clarifying Homer from Homer.” In accor-dance with this, Antiochene interpreters tended to find the full meaning of OTtexts within the OT; v. C. Schäublin (Untersuchungen ), pp. –.



former the gravity of the latter. If a naturally occurring discharge isunclean, lust must be all the more unlawful. Furthermore, this law teaches us to avoid associating with the immoral, for it pronounces

unclean whoever approaches anyone with gonorrhea.”Both the cultic prescriptions and the heroic feats detailed in the

Octateuch readily lend themselves to typological interpretations, of which even Antiochene commentators take frequent advantage.Christian liturgical practice had doubtless already adopted this way of reading the text. When a questioner asks about the priest’s pre-scription of “two living clean birds and cedar wood and crimson

yarn and hyssop” for the cleansing of a leper (Lv .), Theodoretreplies (Q. ), “They present a type of the saving passion. As onewas sacrificed, while the other was dipped in the blood of the sacri-fice and released, so Christ the Lord was crucified for leprous hu-manity: the flesh undergoing death, the divinity appropriating thesuffering of the humanity. And as the leper emerges glowing andcleansed when sprinkled with the blood of the slain bird mixed withpure water on a branch of cedar with hyssop and crimson yarn, sowhoever believes in Christ the Savior and is purified in the water of most holy baptism casts off the stain of his sins. Now, cedar, an in-corruptible wood, is symbolic of the impassible divinity; the crim-son twine, of the humanity, composed of soul and body; and thehyssop, of the ardor and sweet fragrance of the most Holy Spirit. It isthrough these that the baptized are rid of the leprosy of the soul.”This typological approach is so convenient for a pastoral commen-

tator endeavoring to find the contemporary relevance of ancientIsraelite texts that it can be sustained to the point of allegory. Wemay infer that this could give rise to uneasiness among his readers/listeners, even when the word “allegory” was not used, since Theo-doret feels it necessary to invoke (Q. on Ex) the precedent for hisexegesis supplied by Paul in Cor ., :63 “The old was a type of the


xliv

. In Hom. . in Is. . (in illud, Vidi dominum), Chrysostom reports thatsome in his congregation could not stomach the use of allegory. Citing Is . (“Iwill ascend above the heights of the clouds,” etc.), a passage concerning a monarch



new, the Law of Moses a shadow, grace the body. As the Egyptianspursued the Hebrews, and, by crossing the Red Sea, the Hebrewswere freed from the harsh domination of the Egyptians, the sea rep-

resents, in typological terms, the baptismal font, the cloud the Spirit,Moses Christ the Savior, the rod the cross, Pharaoh the devil, theEgyptians the demons, the manna the divine nourishment, and thewater from the rock the saving blood.” This is not the sort of allego-ry the Antiochenes attributed to Origen, because Theodoret stillgives predominant attention to the literal sense, which is not sub-sumed into a spiritual interpretation.64 Theodoret again quotes Cor

(v. ) at the opening of his commentary on Joshua. There, pre-senting Moses and Joshua as types of Christ, he cites Gal ., wherePaul had used a participial form (ajllhgorouvmena) related to thenoun “allegory” to describe the exegetical technique by which hedrew a parallel between Hagar and the earthly, and Sarah, and theheavenly, Jerusalem. Paul, Theodoret declares, “wrote this, not todeny the historical facts, but to compare the type to the reality.” 65

He himself rejects that Alexandrian style of allegory in a pejorativereference (Q. on Gn) to the allegorists’ (ajllhgorhtaiv) interpre-tation of the clothing of skins (Gn .) as the human body.66


xlv

hostile to Israel, to show that the devil fell by incurring the sin of pride, he con-cedes, “Those who do not gladly accept allegories will reject our reference.” In-stead, to prove his point, he must cite Tm ., a passage in which Paul explicitly speaks of the devil’s pride; v. J. Dumortier (note above). If in the Quaest. in oct.Theodoret seems to have unusually ready recourse to typology, and even allegory,

it is partly because he is following the lead of his predecessors in this genre; v.Bardy (“La littérature patristique,” RB []), pp. f.. In the prologue to his commentary on the Psalms, Diodore insists on be-

ginning with a factual reading of the text ( hJ iJstoriva) and only then attempting tofind the spiritual meaning ( hJ qewriva); bypassing the former results not in qewrivabut in allegory (ajllhgoriva); cf. R.C. Hill, Diodore of Tarsus, pp. xxiv–xxx . PaulTernant (“La qewriva d’Antioche dans le cadre des sens de l’Écriture,” Bib.

[]) comments (p. ) that by qewriva the Antiochenes understood their ownposition, and by ajllhgoriva that of their Alexandrian opponents.

. V. note to Q. on Jos.

. Theodoret may have known of the position advanced by Origen (Cels..f.) and Didymus (–) that, before its confinement in the material humanbody, the soul had made use of an immaterial, spiritual body; cf. Cor ..



Nowhere else does he refer specifically to this style of interpretation.Doubtless because of the liturgical practice of his church,

Theodoret often finds christological significance in octateuchal

texts. As we have noted, he believes that the canonicity of Ruth canbe established by the position of this Moabite woman in the geneal-ogy of Christ set out by the Gospel of Matthew. Encouraging hesi-tant Christians to read the Jewish Torah he declares (Q. on Gn),“This race became the object of providential care, since this was thestock from which Christ the Lord, the only-begotten Son of God,was destined to be born according to the flesh.” The ritual of the

scapegoat (ajpopompai'o") and the sacrificed goat, described inLeviticus .–, receives lengthy linguistic and theological clarifi-cation simply because of its perceived christological relevance(Q. . on Lv): “These two animals are also types of Christ theLord, if they are taken, not as referring to two persons, but to twonatures. Since it was impossible for Christ the Lord’s mortality andimmortality to be foreshadowed in one goat (the goat being only mortal), he necessarily ordered that both be offered so that the onesacrificed would prefigure the passibility of the flesh, and the one setfree would manifest the impassibility of the divinity.” 67

.

Perhaps because of the nature of the material, perhaps also be-

cause Theodoret seems to draw his knowledge of his predecessors’work, even that of the Alexandrians, from Diodore, the questions donot adopt a predominantly theological focus. Readers familiar withTheodoret’s commentaries on Isaiah, Song of Songs, and Psalmswill be struck by the different accent of this late work. Nonetheless,as we have seen, Theodoret frequently highlights the figure of Jesus,especially through typology.


xlvi

. V. note to Q. on Lv.



In this work, as in others,68 his christological expressions are notalways entirely felicitous. For example, in the questions on Joshua,Theodoret draws many typological parallels between the two per-

sonages, old and new, bearing the name jIhsou'". So he declaresthat, as after the death of Moses, Joshua had led the Israelites intothe promised land, Christ, “our Joshua,” after the end of the Law,opened the Kingdom of Heaven to his holy people ( pf. Q . on Jos).69

But when asked (Q. on Nm) why Moses called Hosea “Joshua”when he sent him out as a spy (Nm ., ), Theodoret responds ina way that gives a less than adequate expression of the Incarnation:

“Because he was a type of the true Joshua, who, to secure our salva-tion, imitated the disguise of the spies. As spies adopt the dress andlanguage of the nations on which they are spying, so God the Wordclad himself in human nature and adopted human language to se-cure our salvation.”70

In this work he makes no consistent attempt to turn the Torahinto a Christian text or to hunt for traces of Christian dogma. Rarely does he detect a suggestion of trinitarian terminology. The pluralverb in Gn . (“Let us make the human being in our image andlikeness”) though actually no more than a royal plural or reflectiveof the plural form of the Hebrew word for God (’elohim) offers thecommentator just such a suggestion (Q. . on Gn): “But in a few cases, he uses plural forms to bring out the distinction of number of the persons of the Trinity (twn th~ triavdo~ proswvpwn ejmfaivnwnto;n ajriqmovn). When he confused the languages, he did not say in

the singular, ‘I shall go down and confuse the languages,’ but ‘Come,let us go down and confuse their languages.’” 71 Similarly, Theodoretfinds (Q. on Dt) a trinitarian reference in Dt ., a text for which

Theological Issues in the Questions

xlvii

. V. R.C. Hill, Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on the Song, pp. f.. V. also Qq. f.. Theodoret was not aware that the Hebrew name has variants Yehoshua,

Yeshua, and Hoshea; it appears in Greek as ∆Ihsou'".

. E. Speiser (on Gn .) translates the jussive in v. with “Let me go down”;he remarks that “if it were not for the singular in vs. ,” the plural form in this verse“could also be interpreted as an allusion to Yahweh’s celestial staff.”



the NRSV offers four possible versions, and which the LXX rendersas “Listen, Israel, our God is the Lord; the Lord is one.” 72 He de-clares, “I have often remarked that the terms ‘Lord’ and ‘God’ refer

to the divine nature, not to the distinction in persons, whereas ‘Fa-ther,’ ‘Son,’ and ‘Holy Spirit’ refer to the individual persons (to;o[noma to; Kuv rio~ kai; Qeo;~, th~ qeiva~ fuvsew~, ouj th`~ twnproswvpwn diairevsew~ dhlwtikav, o J de; pathv r, kai; oJ uiJov~, kai;to; a{gion pneu` ma twn ijdiothvtwn shmantikav). But the precisedoctrine of God could not be presented to the Jews, who, imperfectas they were, would have found it a pretext for polytheism. Hence,

in the Old Testament, the divine name is expressed in the singularbut contains obscure hints of the Trinity. The verse, ‘Your God is theLord; the Lord is one,’ as well as conveying the unity of being, alsoindicates the number of persons. Note that he used ‘God’ once and‘Lord’ twice.” While the commentator modestly concedes that thetext offers only dark hints (aijnivgmata) of trinitarian teaching, thefinal mathematical calculation will strike a modern reader as per-versely contrived.

The angels seem to constitute a particular preoccupation of Theodoret’s questioner. Three of the first four questions evince con-cerns that must have arisen among Christians due to the silence of Genesis on the creation of the angels. Theodoret has elsewhere ac-knowledged this high degree of contemporary interest and devotionwhile at the same time reporting the efforts of local Church councilsto limit its liturgical expression.73 Here, too, he moves in both direc-

tions. He seems to discourage what is of marginal importance (Q.

on Gn): “I regard this sort of question as over-curious; after all,what benefit could accrue from a knowledge of the exact moment of the creation of the angels?”Yet he also takes the issue seriously (Q.

on Gn): “I feel it is superfluous to go on at length about them; allthe inspired Scripture is full of this doctrine.” In Q. on Nm, dis-


xlviii

. [Akoue ∆Israh;l: kuvrio~ oJ Qeo;~ hJmwn kuvrio~ ei|~ ejsti. Theodoret,however, reads “your (sou) God,” rather than “our ( hJmwn) God.”

. V . Theodoret’s commentary on Colossians (on .).



pensing with further discussion, he simply reports that “some com-mentators” had identified Balaam’s angel (.–) as Michael, butin Q. . on Dt, he goes to some length to account for the reference

to “God’s angels” (. LXX) at the close of Moses’ song.In the Questions on Genesis this Antiochene commentator always

speaks of the fall of Adam and Eve in quite positive terms. Several fo-cus on the narrative of ch. , some on details regarding the serpent(Qq. f., f.), other quite searching ones on the crime and the jus-tice of the punishment (Qq. f.), but none on the question that pre-occupies western moralists: the transmission of the sin to succeeding

generations. Was it fair of God to offer Adam his blessings if thesewere to be forfeited (Q. )? Yes, Theodoret replies: “though fore-knowing the fall, he made him share in his blessings........[H]is inten-tion was that Adam should experience the divine gifts, so that, whendeprived of them, he would hate sin for stripping him of such won-derful blessings.” Were human beings punished in anger (Q. )? Notat all. When considered within the whole of God’s providential dis-pensation, the Fall proved to be a fortunate lapse, a felix culpa, re-grettable but with positive consequences. “Thus the punishment isnot the result of anger, but part of a divine plan of the greatest wis-dom (oijkonomiva sofiva~ megivsth~). So that the human racewould hate sin as the cause of death, after the transgression of thecommandment, God, in his great wisdom, passed the sentence of death and in this way both ensured their hatred of sin and providedthe race with the remedy of salvation, which, through the Incarna-

tion of the Only-begotten, achieves the resurrection of the dead andimmortality.” With typical eastern optimism Theodoret concludes(Q. ), “Indeed, death is healing, not punishment.”

As is to be expected of one who shares the spiritual world-view of Antioch—scriptural, christological, and soteriological—Theodoretis occasionally ambiguous about the relationship between divinegrace and human effort in the process of individual salvation. Al-

though at the beginning of this commentary, after mentioning hisown effort, he piously declares his reliance on God, he sometimes

Theological Issues in the Questions

xlix



make statements that give priority to human effort. Commentingallegorically on the priest’s offering of both the right thigh andbreast of the ram in Ex ., he explains (Q. ), “faith does not suf-

fice for salvation but requires works for perfection.” Accent fallsconstantly on free will and moral accountability. God cannot beshown overriding the former; the latter must be upheld, even in de-fiance of the biblical text. Whether it be Pharaoh opposing the Exo-dus or the nations presuming to challenge the invading Israelitesand thus meeting with extinction, the hardening of their hearts isattributed to the malice of those punished, a malice that God per-

mits but does not cause. “God is responsible for good, not for evil.He indicates what we should do, turns us away from sin, does notforce our choices but yields to our free will. Since God permits sinand, though he might, refuses to prevent it to avoid compelling any act by overwhelming force (for it is the voluntary aspect of virtuousaction that is praiseworthy), Moses spoke of God’s permission as re-sponsibility” (Q. . on Dt).

. ’

Taking on this task at the request of his coadjutor Hypatius at atime of failing health, Theodoret is conscious that he is reaching theend of his exegetical career. As he indicates in Q. . on Leviticus, hehas already completed “expositions of the Old Testament prophets

and.......commentaries on the epistles of the apostle.” One does not,however, sense grudging effort and enforced brevity, as though theQuestions were not a labor of love like his other commentaries; heseems pleased to be nearing completion of his exegesis of well-nighthe whole of Scripture. And we are doubly pleased that the text isfully extant. Although the choice of genre rules out verse-by-versecomment, Theodoret has generally avoided the concomitant risks of

omitting passages of major significance and settling for the sensa-tional. Thankfully, his fictitious questioner has an eagle eye for even


l



minor discrepancies. Theodoret’s approach still evinces typically Antiochene precision, and, as ever, he tries to provide all informa-tion necessary for his reader’s understanding of the text. He always

seeks to achieve clarity and conciseness.Though we are not surprised that Theodoret’s conclusions do

not always agree with those of his modern counterparts, we findthroughout comments of great acuity. Convinced that the transla-tion produced by the Seventy enjoyed the inspiration of the Spirit,74

he is no more ready than his peers to submit it to searching criti-cism. And, like his predecessors, he is unfamiliar with Hebrew. On

the other hand, from the beginning, he acknowledges that Genesis isa theological reflection as well as a factual narrative and devotesquestions f. to the meaning of the key idea of “image and likeness”in the creation of man. He catches the significance of the sabbaticalclimax to chapter even if he fails to note the significant differencesin the second account of creation immediately following this cli-max.75 He grasps the basic message of Deuteronomy and recognizesthat the author of Joshua used an earlier source. Yet it is only inJoshua that he comes to acknowledge layers in a composite text;nowhere else does he realize that discrepancies of fact within a book or a chapter may reflect diversity of authorship. Though there aretraces of literalism in his hermeneutic, he is also ready to admit thatan adequate interpretation must sometimes go beyond the meresurface of the text; he prefers to interpret many passages eschatolog-ically, christologically, spiritually, and/or sacramentally. He fre-

quently has recourse to typology, less often to allegory. The ethical

Theodoret’s Achievement in the Questions

li

. Like his predecessors and contemporaries, Theodoret fully accepts the ac-count of the origins of the LXX contained in the Letter of Aristeas. In the preface tohis commentary on the Psalms (PG, vol. , col. ), he argues that, since thetranslators enjoyed divine inspiration, the titles of the psalms must be accordedthe same respect as the poetic text. This represents a tacit rejection of the positionof Diodore, who had argued (Comm. in ps., prol.) that the titles were composed,not by the inspired authors, but by post-exilic compilers who assembled the dis-

persed psalms into one collection and excogitated the titles from an often erro-neous conception of the meaning of the poems.. V. note above.



tone of his work is typically Antiochene: the Fall, though real, is sus-ceptible of positive assessment, and free will cannot be supersededeven by the Almighty.

Though a work of his decline, the Questions on the Octateuch merit the praise that Photius in the ninth century conferred onTheodoret’s biblical commentaries: “On the whole, he reached thetop level of exegetes, and it would not be easy to find anyone betterat elucidating obscure points.”76 The reader will turn eagerly to hisnext and final exegetical work, The Questions on Kingdoms and Chronicles, which begin with a like promise to make clear whatever

requires elucidation.

. , ,

’

[. . .]

Our modern English versions of the Octateuch depend on therelatively late Masoretic Hebrew text.77 As Theodoret read a Greek version current in Antioch that differed from other forms of theLXX and was translated from a Hebrew original in many respectsdifferent from the MT,78 neither the NRSV nor any other Englishversion, nor even the Greek texts read by other patristic commenta-tors will correspond completely with the Bible that lay beforeTheodoret as he composed his Questions. When translating biblicalpassages, the primary concern has been to determine their meaning

to Theodoret, interpreter of the Antiochene LXX, rather than to re-produce our current understanding of the Hebrew original. Unless


lii

. Bibl., cod. . Photius proceeds (cod. ) to remark on the Questions: “Ihad an opportunity to read the explanation of the Octateuch by this same authorof blessed memory; bearing a title appropriate to the work, it is called ‘On ques-tions regarding Scripture’ (Eij~ ta; a [pora.......th~ Grafh~). It contains com-ments also on the books of Samuel-Chronicles. This is an extremely useful work.”

. For a brief note on the Masoretic text, v. K.G. O’Connell, “Hebrew Text of the Old Testament,” pp. f.. V. sec. above.



otherwise acknowledged, English renditions of biblical passages inthe text and notes are those of the translator.

It is often difficult to determine whether Theodoret is quoting,

paraphrasing, or simply alluding to the sacred text. In addition to thequestions arising from the differences between his Greek Bible andmore widely circulating recensions, there are those resulting fromthe exigencies of Greek grammar, which would sometimes forceTheodoret to change the inflections of individual words in thecourse of a discussion. We define a quotation of the OT as a verbalcorrespondence with the Göttingen Septuagint, where this is avail-

able, or with Rahlfs’ edition of for those books still unpublishedby the Göttingen Academy, and a quotation of the NT as a verbalcorrespondence with the fourth edition of The Greek New Testament,edited by B. Aland et al.79 Where Theodoret’s text presents variantsthat consist of nothing more than differences of case endings, alteredword order, the substitution of a close synonym for a word found, orthe addition of a word or brief phrase not found in these editions, wehave had to decide whether we thought he was quoting his Antioch-ene text or adjusting the wording to the context of his discussion.Where the former has seemed at least likely, we have adopted the ital-ics of quotation, elsewhere, the ordinary roman font. Throughout weuse points of suspension to note the absence of material appearing inour authorities. Of course, we do not pretend to know whetherTheodoret is abbreviating his own biblical text or quoting it in full.

To the extent possible, we cite Theodoret’s biblical references ac-

cording to the chapter and verse of the NRSV. Yet in cases where hisrecension seems to have diverged markedly from () the MT and ()more widespread forms of the LXX we follow the chapter and versedivisions of the LXX, rather than those of the NRSV . The parenthet-ical abbreviation “(LXX)” indicates that a verse or a portion of thatverse is found in the Greek but not in the Hebrew,80 the abbreviation

Theodoret’s Quotations of Scripture

liii

. V. the section of the Bibliography entitled “Bible: Ancient Texts, Versions,Concordance, and Catenae.”. We do not use this abbreviation to point out substantial differences of



“(LXX var.)” that the variation of Theodoret’s text from that of ourauthorities for the LXX is quite substantial: either his text contains asignificant word or phrase not in our standard version or presents a

wording so different as to render the quotation difficult to recog-nize.81 In the latter case, the reader may wish to consult the appara-tus criticus of the Göttingen LXX for more information on the wit-nesses with whom Theodoret’s text agrees against other recensions.We have used the abbreviation “(LXX var.)” also to mark a very few passages where Theodoret offers a form of words that more closely follows the MT than the LXX, even though the Göttingen editors

have not taken these into their apparatus criticus.82

The same princi-ples govern the very rare deployment of the abbreviation “(NTvar.),” where Theodoret presents a text substantially different fromthat of our authority.

The reader will frequently encounter in the English translationparaphrases of scriptural passages set off by quotation marks; asthese are not direct quotations, the corresponding Greek has notbeen italicized.83 This punctuation is meant to bring out an impor-tant rhetorical device, by which, to impress a word of command orexhortation more vividly on the imagination of his audience, Theo-doret restates a direct address in what he regards as a more straight-forward and forcible manner. In some cases he makes changes of


liv

meaning between the MT and the LXX. V., e.g., Jgs ., where the MT reports thatAchsah urged Othniel to ask Caleb for a field, and the LXX has the husband urgethe wife to put the request. As the LXX does not add material not to be found inthe MT, we do not mark this reference with “LXX.” There are, as well, in the Index scripturisticus a few cases where we use “LXX” simply to indicate that an explana-tory note quotes and discusses the Greek translation of a verse.

. In the Qq. on Jgs, we use the abbreviation (LXX B ) to mark quotationswhose wording agrees with that of the codex vaticanus in a significant departurefrom that of the codex alexandrinus; cf. sec. above.

. V. e.g., the discussion of his version of Jos . in note to Q. on Jos.. In the Greek text, italics mark () direct quotation of Scripture and

() words or phrases that Theodoret wishes to highlight, and which may or may not be drawn from Scripture. For an example of the latter usage, v. Q. . on Gn:ÔO de; provtero" oujrano;" oujk ejklhvqh sterevwma, ajllæ ouj rano;" ejx ajrch'"wjnomavsqh.



subject (e.g., from “the Lord” to “I”) and inserts pronominal adjec-tives (e.g. “my” or “your”) to intensify the dramatic effect. For agood example, compare the quotation and the subsequent para-

phrase of Jgs .– in Q. . on Jgs.We have tried to make our documentation as full as possible. To

help the reader draw detailed comparisons between scriptural textand commentary, we have indicated numerous references in addi-tion to the direct quotations. Thus, for the Questions on Genesis alone our apparatus of ancient sources counts some more cita-tions than those noted by our most recent predecessors, and the vast

majority of these are references.We have not, however, attempted to list cross-references. Thus,where we believe that Theodoret is directing the reader to a NT pas-sage that cites a Hebrew prophet, we cite only the former. Likewise,we do not cite the parallel passages for Gospel pericopes. Thus a ref-erence to Mt .f. should not be interpreted to mean that Theodo-ret must be referring to Matthew’s, rather than Mark’s or Luke’s, ac-count of the quelling of the storm.

Finally, we have regularly adapted proper nouns to the formsused in the NRSV. This was not possible in Q. on Gn, whereTheodoret offers a Greek transliteration of Joseph’s Egyptian namethat does not correspond with the Hebrew transliteration of theMT. Otherwise, all names will appear in the form most familiar tospeakers of English.

Theodoret’s Quotations of Scripture

lv



INTRODUCTION

TO THE GREEK TEXT

J. F. P.

.

The present edition of Theodoret’s Quaest. in oct. is only the fifthsince the invention of movable type. The editio princeps appeared in, the first more-or-less complete edition in , and the firstfully critical edition in . Our own editio minor improves uponthis last.

A. The Editio princeps The complete text of the Quaest. became available in print in

several steps. The first was the editio princeps of the French scholarJ. Picot (Ioannes Picus).1 In a note to the reader dated February ,, Picot explained that he had made use of a single very defectivemanuscript, whose purveyor he vaguely named as Asulanus Venetus (Cum huius operis vnicum.......exemplar Graecum ab Asulano Veneto

nactus essem).2 As F. Petit has shown, this manuscript must have

lvii

. Fernández Marcos and Sáenz-Badillos incorrectly refer to him (p. xxvii) asPic. F. Petit reports (Catenae, vol. , p. xli, note ) that she found a notice regard-ing Picot in J.P. Nicéron, Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire des hommes illustres dans la république des lettres. This mentions that he was a priest who employed his freetime in producing Latin and French translations of Greek patristic texts and listsnine titles, including other editions, that appeared between and , the yearof his death. I have not been able to verify this information from the volumes of Nicéron’s work dated and the single supplementary volume from that areavailable at the Library of Congress.

. Sirmond (v. sec. C below) reproduces Picot’s remarks on the fourteenth un-numbered page following the frontispiece.



been brought to Paris by Giovanni Francesco d’Asola, the brother-in-law of the great Venetian printer of classical texts, Aldus Manu-tius. D’Asola’s manuscript, probably purchased with numerous oth-

er Greek and Latin codices by the royal library at Fontainebleau in, has not been recognized in any extant book.3 If, as seems likely,it was used as printer’s copy, it may well have been destroyed in theprocess of producing the printed edition. Nonetheless, in a piece of excellent philological detective work, Petit has been able to provethat the asulanus must have been a descendent of two other manu-scripts, both still extant. For Qq. – on Gn, it must have repro-

duced the tradition preserved in Madrid, Bibl. Nac. (th c.),and for the rest of the Qq. on Gn through Q. on Jgs, that pre-served in Vat., gr. (th c. = c ). Thus, the asulanus was a late andderivative witness to the text.4

Worse, it was incomplete in two ways. For most of its text an apo-graph of the defective c, and itself perhaps only a mangled copy of that, it lacked the general preface, Q. on Gn, part of Q. on Jgs, allof Qq. – on Jgs, and the two questions on Ruth.5 Second, thisbranch of the tradition contains a recension of the Qq. on Gn –

that is characterized by frequent abbreviation of the text.6 Picot wasable to restore the answer to the first Q. on Gn and the missing partof the twentieth on Jgs by reference to another royal manuscriptcontaining a Greek exegetical chain.7 He must have suspected that,even so, the work remained incomplete, because he noted that,

Introduction to the Greek Text

lviii

. V. Petit, Catenae, vol. , p. xlii, note . Thus asulanus venetus was Picot’sidentification of the man who brought the manuscript to Fontainebleau, not hisdenomination of the manuscript itself, as Fernández Marcos and Sáenz-Badillosimply (p. xxvii): [Picus] “alude al ‘asulano veneto,’ no conocido, del que saca el tex-to.” Nonetheless, I shall follow these editors and Petit (e.g., the stemma, p. li), inapplying this convenient label to Picot’s manuscript.

. Petit, Catenae, vol. , pp. xli–xlv, xlviiif., li, liii.. Ibid., pp. xxxiii–xxxvii.. v. Petit, Catenae, vol. , pp. xxxi, lviii, note , and xcviiif.

. Picot drew his supplements from the present Paris, Bibl. Nat. gr. –, inwhich Theodoret’s first question has been replaced by a citation of Gn .; v. ib., pp.xlii–xlv.



though entitled Questions on the Octateuch, in its present form, it of-fered comment only on the first seven books of the Old Testament.

Though shorter than it should have been, Picot’s edition also con-

tained interpolated passages belonging to fathers other than Theo-doret. These, twelve in all, entered the tradition at a point earlier thanthe copying of the asulanus, whose scribe would have found them al-ready intercalated among the Questions on Gn and unprovided withany indication of authorship or provenance.8 The reader can find al-most all of these in the eighteenth-century edition of J.L. Schulze,reprinted in vol. of the PG.9

In addition to editing the Greek text, Picot produced a Latintranslation for Qq. Gn –Jgs . Petit reports that, though bound to-gether in the copy belonging to the Bibliothèque Nationale, text andtranslation each have a separate title page and pagination, an indica-tion that they were meant to be published separately. Both, however,bear the same date and issue from the same press, that of Jacques duPuys (Iacobi Puteani).10 Though Picot reported that he had seen aLatin translation of questions on later historical books (in libros Regum), his own was the earliest printed translation of the Quaest.in oct. and the sole translation available for most of that work untilthe publication of the present edition.11

B. Supplements to Picot’s Text:Gentien Hervet and David Hoeschel

The publication of those portions not printed by Picot would

not be complete for the better part of a century. Almost fourteen years after the appearance of Picot’s edition, Gentien Hervet (Gen-tianus Hervetus) published a Latin translation of the missing sec-tions of Jgs and Ruth. In a note to the reader dated December ,

Hervet and Hoeschel

lix

. Ibid., pp. xxxv, xliii.. In Schulze’s the edition, the first stands between Qq. and and the last be-

tween Qq. and on Gn.. Catenae, vol. , p. xli.. His translation was somewhat revised by Schulze; v. sec. D below.



, Hervet, then Canon of Rheims, recounts that while in atten-dance on Cardinal Charles of Lorraine at the Council of Trent(), he was offered the opportunity to purchase a Greek manu-

script containing Anastasius Sinaita’s work on the Hexaemeron andTheodoret’s Quaestiones.12 Upon examining the volume, he realizedthat it contained questions on the Octateuch not known to Picot aswell as the Questions on Sm through Chr. In hopes of performinga service to the scholarly world, he purchased the volume from hismeager personal funds and translated the missing Q. on Jgsthrough Ruth and the Questions on Kings and Chronicles as well.13

Hervet never printed a Greek text for these materials. The editio princeps of most, though not all, of the missing Quaest. in oct. wasprovided by David Hoeschel (Hoeschelius) of Augsburg in his edi-tion of Photius’s Bibliotheca .14 There, he supplied Qq. , , andabout two thirds of Q. on Jgs., and Q. on Ruth. W. Gerhäuser, acolleague of A. Rahlfs, identified Hoeschel’s source as the sixteenth-century manuscript Munich gr. ( ) whose lacunas correspondprecisely with the limits of these partial supplements.15


lx

. For an account of Hervet (–), v. M. Ott, “Hervetus, Gentian,” The Catholic Encyclopedia,” vol. : Greg.–Infal. (New York ), p. . In his prefatory material, Sirmond (v. sec. C below) provides (v. the fourteenth unnumbered pagefollowing the frontispiece), as if in a complete and faithful transcript, a copy of thenote attached by Hervetus to his translation of the Questions on Kings and Chroni-cles. But this is actually a summary; a more complete and apparently accurate tran-script appears in Beati Theodoreti episcopi cyrensis theologi vetustissimi, Opera om-nia quae ad hunc diem latine versa sparsim extiterunt (Cologne ), vol. ,pp. f.

. Hervet did not retranslate the material already dealt with by Picot. Latereditions offering a Latin translation simply combine the work of Picot and Hervet.. At the Library of Congress I had access to Hoeschel’s edition only as aug-

mented with Latin translation and additional notes by Andreas Schottus of An-twerp: Photii Myriobiblon, sive Bibliotheca librorum quos Photius Patriarcha con-stantinopolitanus legit et censuit, graece edidit Dauid Hoeschelius augustanus, et notis illustrauit. Latine uero reddidit et scholiis auxit Andreas Schottus antuerpianus (Oliua Pauli Stephani ). Hoeschel’s supplements to the Greek text of Picot areon pp. – of the “Notae D. H. ad Biblioth. Photii” = Ccccr–v. His original edi-tion of Photius was published in Augsburg in ; v. Fernández Marcos and

Sáenz-Badillos, p. xxvii.. Fernández Marcos and Sáenz-Badillos are at the least misleading when they state (p. xxvii) that Hoeschel “completaría la parte que faltaba en la edición de [Pi-



C. Jacques Sirmond’s Edition of

It was not until that a more-or-less complete edition of

Quaest. in oct. was finally published. This was the work of J. Sirmond,the Jesuit patristic scholar and confessor of Louis XIII. Sirmond hadat his disposal a manuscript he described only as a complete and“outstanding witness of great age” (exemplar .......optimum uetustissi-mumque ). This provided him with the general preface, the correctform of the question to Q. on Gn, and a full Greek text of all theQq. that Hervet and Hoeschel had brought to light.16 Thus he was

able to print the editio princeps of the beginning (the general prefaceand the question of the first Q.) and the end of the work (Qq. –

on Jgs, the last third of Q. , Q. , and Q. on Ruth). Equally im-portant, Sirmond’s witness contained the longer recension of the en-tire work rather than the shortened form characteristic of the family from which the early part of Picot’s asulanus was derived.17 Rahlfshad identified this manuscript, received in the royal library some-

Sirmond

lxi

cot] algunos años más tarde” and that his edition “recoge las Quaest. desde la in Ju hasta el final de Rut tal como se encontraban en los ff. v–v del ms. Mu-nich, Bay. Staatsbibliothek Gr. .” For Gerhäuser’s identification of Hoeschel’ssource, v. Rahlfs, Verzeichnis, pp. and , note . His conclusion is open to somedoubt. In a comparison of the readings and omissions reported for in the ap. crit.of Fernández Marcos and Sáenz-Badillos with the text printed by Hoeschel, I notedthe following discrepancies: l. , p. ejkdihthmevnw~ : ejkdiaitwmevnw~Hoesch. | l. , p. toi~ : th~ Hoesch. | l. , p. me;n ga;r Qavmar kai; hJÔRaa;b hJ dev : me;n Qavmar kai; hJ ÔRaa;b kai; hJ ∆Rou;q ajllov fuloi. canaanaiai

ga;r hJ Qavmar kai; hJ ÔRaavb: hJ dev Hoesch. The last of these is very striking, yet it isequally striking that at ll. –, p. , only and Hoeschel’s text agree in omittingkai; th;n–kai; trivth~. If the reports of the Madrid edition are entirely correct, it ispossible that Hoeschel worked from either a brother of or an apograph that car-ried the longer version of l. , p. in a marginal addition. Or perhaps he supple-mented the witness of with that of some second manuscript. At l. , p. , wherethe Spanish editors print soi, Hoeschel prints sou with the notation “al. toi.”

. As Petit points out (Catenae, vol. , p. lviii, note ), Sirmond never men-tions, and was probably unacquainted with, Hoeschel’s edition of the missingquestions on Jgs and Ruth.

. Sirmond declares that he has been able to use a manuscript that providednot only the preface and the questions missing at the end of Picot’s edition sed et alia passim multa pleniora vulgatis vel emendatiora; v. Petit, Catenae, vol. , p. lviii.



time between and , with the present Paris, Bibl. Nat. gr.

( ).18 But, noting that differs from Sirmond’s edition in contents,readings, and the numeration of the questions, Fernández Marcos

has proven that it could not have served as his exemplar.19

In addition to filling in the lacunae of Picot’s edition, Sirmondwas able to distinguish between the text of Theodoret and the twelveadventitious quotations of other fathers that had entered the Qq. onGn through the line represented by the asulanus. He retained almostall of these twelve texts, but, with the aid of information drawn fromexegetical chains, succeeded in providing the correct attribution for

most. In a few cases, he made attributions that have seemed plausi-ble, if not provable, and which may have reposed on nothing but hishistorical and stylistic sense.20

Sirmond’s text of the Quaest. in oct. appears in the first of thefour volumes of his complete edition of the works of Theodoret.Some forty years after the publication of the complete edition, an-other Jesuit patristic scholar, Jean Garnier (Joannes Garnerius) pub-lished a volume known as the Auctarium.21 Intended as a supple-ment to Sirmond’s Theodoreti episcopi Cyri Opera omnia, it contains


lxii

. V. Rahlfs, Verzeichnis, pp. and , note .. In their edition, Fernández Marcos and Sáenz-Badillos had accepted (p. xix)

Rahlfs’ identification. For Fernández Marcos’ negative conclusion, v. “La edición,”p. , and cf. Petit, Catenae, vol. , p. lvi.

. For more information on passages drawn from fathers other thanTheodoret that Sirmond retained, dropped, or added, v. Petit, Catenae, vol. , pp.lviii–lxiv. On the general reliability of Sirmond’s judgments, she remarks (p. lxv),“Les attributions précisées par Sirmond résistent donc fort bien à la critique. Sitoutes ne sont pas également garanties, il est remarquable qu’aucune n’est con-trouvée.” Given Sirmond’s diligence in distinguishing these passages from theQuestions of Theodoret, it is surprising that Fernández Marcos and Sáenz-Badillosaver (p. xxvii) that, as a consequence of his choice of manuscript, “durante siglos seatribuirían a Teodoreto comentarios que no son suyos”; cf. the similarly mistakencriticism in Fernández Marcos, “La edición,” p. .

. Auctarium Theodoreti cyrensis episcopi (Paris ); for the title and theplace and date of publication, v. E.-H. Vollet, “Garnier (Jean),” La Grande Ency-clopédie (Paris –), vol. : “Franco-Gonon,” pp. f. I have seen only thereprint in the PG. Fernández Marcos and Sáenz-Badillos speak (p. xxvii) inaccu-rately of “P. Garrier.”



texts, some correctly others wrongly, attributed to Theodoret, alongwith critical essays on his works and doctrine. None of Garnier’s ad-ditions to the text of Theodoret pertain to the Quaest. in oct.

D. Johann Ludwig Schulze’s edition of

In the accuracy and completeness of the Greek text, the subse-quent edition of our work by the German Protestant scholar J.L.Schulze (–) represented only a slight improvement over thatof Sirmond.22 Indeed, in his preface to the reader, Schulze confessedthat he wished his own edition of Theodoret to be as close as possi-

ble to that of his predecessor.23

Yet to check and supplement what hefound in Sirmond’s text of the Quaest. in oct., Schulze was able todraw on a sixteenth-century manuscript, the present Munich, Bayer.Staatsbibl., Cod. gr. ( ), then part of the collection belonging tothe city of Augsburg.24 From this he excerpted variant readings,which he usually recorded at the bottom of the page, but a review of even the very limited critical notes of the present editio minor willshow that he sometimes preferred readings of this manuscript tothose adopted by Sirmond.25 Perhaps the most notable result of his

Schulze

lxiii

. Schulze’s edition of Theodoret is reprinted in PG, voll. –; vol. con-tains the Quaest. in oct.

. Ordinem librorum eumdem tenuimus, quem olim secutus est Jac. Sirmondus,cujus editioni nostram esse cupimus quam simillimam; vol. , coll. f.

. Schulze was much mistaken as to the age of this manuscript, which he de-scribed (ib., coll. f.) as chartaceus, sæculo xi, ut videtur, scriptus in fol. He cited it

as cod. augustanus or simply cod. As Petit shows (Catenae, vol.

, pp. xxxviif.,xlviii–liii) this manuscript draws its text of Qq. – on Gn from the still extantMadrid, Bibl. Nac. (th c.) and that of the remainder of the Qq. on Gnthrough Q. on Jgs from the still extant Vat. gr. (th c.). As is both the fa-ther (for Qq. – on Gn) and brother (for the remainder of the Qq. on Gnthrough Q. on Jgs) of Picot’s asulanus (v. Petit, Catenae, vol. , pp. xliif., li–liii),Schulze must have noted that it sometimes agreed with Picot’s edition against thatof Sirmond. If he ever paused to consider the relationship of his codex augustanus to Picot’s asulanus, his mistaken notion as to the age of the former may have en-couraged him to regard the two as independent witnesses.

. V., e.g., my critical notes for Gn and ; Lv ; Dt (hJ mw` n .......uJ ma` ~ ) and; and Jos . In Qq. , , and on Gn he also corrected Sirmond’s nonsensicalka/ [n to kajn; v. note below. Furthermore, Schulze implies (PG, vol. , coll. f.)



consultation of was the admission of a brief question not includ-ed by either Picot or Sirmond.26 Thus, in his edition of the Quaest.in oct., Schulze did not, as has been repeatedly stated, merely re-

print the Greek text of Sirmond.27

Schulze retained in his text, and with Sirmond’s attributions, theadventitious passages derived from the tradition of Picot’s asulanus.Indeed, following manuscript , Schulze reinstated a couple of ex-cerpts ejected by the Jesuit editor. As he also retained another addedby Sirmond, his edition provides convenient access to a goodly stock of comments by patristic exegetes prior to Theodoret on some im-

portant passages of Genesis.28

In addition, Schulze combed the recently published Catena Nike- phori (–) for passages of Theodoret unknown to his predeces-sors. This very rare work was then and remains today the only com-plete Greek chain on the Octateuch available in a printed text.29 For


lxiv

that he compared the readings of Hoeschel’s and Sirmond’s texts in Jgs f. and ,and Ruth .

. This is # on Gn in the edition of Fernández Marcos and Sáenz-Badillos.V. PG, vol. , col. and note . Schulze was able to correct the very inaccuratetext of this question offered in by reference to the Catena Nikephori, which weshall discuss below.

. For the identification of Schulze’s text with that of Sirmond, v. e.g., De-vreesse (Chaînes, col. ): “le texte est celui de l’édition de Sirmond parue en, auquel on a ajouté des notes et des variantes”; Fernández Marcos and Sáenz-Badillos (p. xxvii): “Schulze reproduce el texto de Sirmond, recogiendo a pie depágina variantes”; P. Nautin (in his review of the edition of Fernández Marcos andSáenz-Badillos REG [], p. ): “l’édition de Schulze.......reprend simple-

ment le texte de Sirmond.”. V. Petit, Catenae, vol. , p. lviii, notes – and p. lxi. The passages of Gnfor which Schulze presents comments of authors other than Theodoret include: .(“darkness covered the face of the deep”); . (“Let us make humankind in ourimage”); . (“and let them have dominion”); . (“and he rested on the seventhday”); .– (“no plant of the field was yet in the earth.......and there was no one totill the ground”); . (“the Lord God planted a garden in Eden”); .f. (“they sewedfig leaves together ........They heard the sound of the Lord God walking”); .f.(the tunics of skin); . (the Cherubim guarding Paradise with flaming sword);. (“Ham was the father of Canaan”).

. Petit (Catenae, vol. , p. xxx.) describes this work (CPG #C) as “La seulechaîne grecque imprimée”; v. also “La Chaîne,” vol. , pp. xxxivf. As it was pub-lished in Leipzig, Schulze refers to it as the catena lipsiensis.



the first two books, it relies solely on the eleventh-century Athens,∆Eqn. Bibl. , which Petit describes as one of the worse representa-tives of a later interpolated strand of the catena for Gn and Ex and

“particulièrement défectueux en ce qui regarde les lemmes.” Sheconcludes that the Catena Nikephori is of no value for the scientificstudy of the chains.30 From this source, Schulze excerpted nine siz-able passages, eight relative to Gn and one to Ex, which he printed innotes that have been reproduced at the bottom of the pages of vol. of the PG.31 In her editions of the chains on Genesis and Exodus,Petit has now published all this material with attributions to

Theodoret’s Antiochene predecessors.32

Clearly, Schulze was too

Schulze

lxv

. Catenae graecae, vol. , pp. xxxf.. As the Catena Nikephori was published after the appearance of his first

volume containing the Quaest. in oct., Schulze included his excerpts in an appendix to the fifth volume, published in . In his reissue of Schulze’s edition, Migneinserted these as notes below the relevant section of text; v. PG, vol. , note a tocoll. f. The first two (∆Allæ oujk ejpi; touto....... e{pesqai de; ejkeivnhn and [Eqo~toi~ ajpatwmevnoi~.......givnetai ejpivgnwsi~) appeared in the Catena Nikephori between Qq. and on Gn; the third (Poiav eijsi ta; eJpta....... ejn pavsh/ th/ ` gh/ )

between Qq.

and

; the fourth (Kai; e[zhse QarjrJa

....... eij~ th;n CavrjrJan

ejxh/ v esan) between Qq. and ; the fifth and sixth (∆Edhlounto me;n....... uJposcevsei~ and Peri; de; hJlivou.......legomevnwn ajkrovasin) at the end of Q.

(Schulze) = (Fernández Marcos and Sáenz-Badillos); the seventh and eighth( Diativ ouj c....... eujlogiva~ e[ti and ÔO Suvro~....... eujwdestavtwn) between Qq.

and (Schulze) = and (Fernández Marcos and Sáenz-Badillos); and the ninth(∆Epeidh; i[ cnh....... ei[ h a]n ajmpwtismov~) at the end of the answer to Q. on Ex.

. Schulze’s first excerpt = La chaîne sur la Genèse, vol. , frag. (probably Theodore of Mopsuestia); Schulze’s second = La chaîne sur la Genèse, vol. , frag. (Didymus the Blind); Schulze’s third excerpt = Catenae, vol. , frag. (prob-

ably Diodore); Schulze’s fourth excerpt = Catenae, vol. , frag. (Diodore orTheodore of Mopsuestia); Schulze’s fifth and sixth excerpts = Catenae, vol. , frag. (perhaps Theodore of Mopsuestia); Schulze’s seventh excerpt = Catenae, vol. ,frag. (probably Diodore); Schulze’s eighth excerpt = Catenae, vol. , frag.

(Diodore); and Schulze’s ninth excerpt = La chaîne sur l’Exode, vol. : Coll. cois.,frag. (Diodore). Aware of Petit’s work on the Collectio coisliniana and the chains,Fernández Marcos and Sáenz-Badillos decided not to offer a text of the passagesassigned to Theodoret by the Catena Nikephori and inserted by Schulze into hisnotes. Despite their rejection of this material, the editors did not regard their edi-tion as incomplete. I point this out only because English readers of Fernández

Marcos’ The Septuagint in Context may have been puzzled by the statement (p.): “we decided to edit critically Theodoret’s Quaestiones in octateuchum, an edi-tion with many chapters missing.” The last phrase of the translation misrepresents



sanguine in his hope of reaping a bountiful harvest of supplementsfrom the Catena Nikephori.33

In addition to checking and supplementing the Greek text of Sir-

mond, Schulze tried to improve both the annotation and the trans-lation. In his identifications of scriptural passages, he provided, forthe first time, not just the number of the chapter but also the verse.He made an effort, as well, to point out where Theodoret’s biblicaltext departed from the more widely known LXX readings. Thoughhe took over the translations of Picot and Hervet that he found inSirmond, he added to and reworked these as he thought necessary.34

For scholars who understand its limitations, Schulze’s editionwill long retain a certain usefulness. Here, alongside of Theodoret’sQq., one can read, albeit in a less than entirely satisfactory edition,the comments of other exegetes on a number of biblical passagesthat occasioned much debate in antiquity. In addition, Schulze pro-vides both excerpts and variant readings from the Catena Nikephori,to which few will have direct access.35 The Abbé Migne performedgood service to the study of Theodoret by choosing this edition by aProtestant scholar for inclusion in his collection.

E. The First Critical Edition

The first truly critical edition of the Quaest. in oct., that of N.Fernández Marcos and A. Sáenz-Badillos, was published only in


lxvi

the words,“edición que por muchos capítulos se echaba de menos,” where “capítu-los” would be well rendered as “reasons,” i.e., “an edition that, for many reasons,was regarded as desirable”; v. Introducción a las versiones griegas de la Biblia (Madrid), p. .

. V. PG, vol. , coll. f.: Largam enim esse hanc messem, intelligent omnes ex illis quae .......attulimus.

. Cum [Sirmondus ] his .......antiquioribus versionibus textum Græcum adjecer-it, factum est ut hic illis non ubique responderet. Nunc enim plura, nunc pauciora,nunc vero longe alia in textu quam in versione erant expressa. Schulze seems to referprimarily to such changes in the translation as were necessitated by the introduc-tion of words to, or their elimination from, the Greek text.

. A search of the listings in OCLC turned up only four copies in the UnitedStates, none in the Washington metropolitan area. I found no listing in the Nation-

al Union Catalog.



, more than four hundred years after Picot’s editio princeps.Drawing widely both on manuscripts that contain only Theodoret’sQuestions and those in which the Questions are embedded in a

wealth of other patristic commentary, they undertook the massivetask of collating completely thirty-one manuscripts, includingtwenty-six dating from the ninth through the fourteenth centuries,and inspecting for selected passages another fifteen, all recentiores from the fifteenth through the eighteenth centuries.36 This edition isindispensable for any reader who wishes to see the full variety of manuscript readings and to form an idea of the relationships

among the ancient witnesses.Though they do not construct a complete stemma, the editors re-gard nineteen of the thirty-one fully collated manuscripts as some-times or always representative of one of three classes: “A,” “B ,” “C .”The first two consist of manuscripts that contain only the text of Theodoret, the last of chain and chain-like texts.37 All three groupsare represented throughout the work but with more or fewer wit-nesses as one progresses from book to book.38 There remain twelvemanuscripts that they do not attempt to fit into any of these threeclasses.

Dividing the A group into several subgroups, a, a 1, and a

2 , they

seem almost unsure whether these are sufficiently similar to be re-garded as a family. “A, más que un grupo homogéneo no es sino lafusión o coincidencia de estos tres subgrupos bien caracterizados.”Nonetheless, they aver that, as a whole, A presents a text of good

Fernández Marcos and Sáenz-Badillos

lxvii

. Of course, these thirty-one contain very various amounts of text: rangingfrom a single question () to just a few questions ( , , ), to the great majority of the text (c, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ) to complete ().

. V. p. xxii. Though other manuscripts contain some interpolated commentsfrom other patristic writers, the C group presents the text of Theodoret embeddedin a wealth of extrinsic material. The editors describe the entire C group as thatcontaining “los mss. propiamente catenáceos,” but a further distinction is neces-sary; v. below.

. For more information on the members of each group and the contentsof each manuscript, v. the description of the manuscripts in the Conspectus siglo-rum.



quality, which merits primary attention in the establishment of thetext.39

The B group is, in general, less ancient than the A or C but not

derived from either. It is characterized by numerous errors typical of later texts. The editors declare that they have seldom adopted any readings peculiar to this class.40

Finally, the C group, is further subdivided into c and c 1. The first,

including Paris, Bibl. Nat., Coislinianus of the ninth century, an-other codex of the tenth, and a third of the eleventh century, is themost ancient of all the subgroups. Here, Theodoret’s Questions are

presented in sequence, each followed by excerpts from other patris-tic authors, mostly representatives of the Antiochene school. Petitargues that the c codices should be regarded as sources, not of achain, but of a dossier (the Collectio coisliniana ) that was intendedto present the Questions of Theodoret in the context of his sources.41

This subgroup is characterized by a tendency to abbreviation, espe-cially at the end of questions and answers. As we have seen, for morethan half of the Qq. on Genesis (–) Picot’s asulanus must have


lxviii

. V. p. xxiii: “Su calidad textual es por lo general elevada, y merece atenciónespecialísima en la fijación del texto.

. V. p. xxiv. In their “Siglas” one finds the following listing for this group:“B = , (, desde Le ).” Yet, as the description of (Florence, Bibl. Medic.Laurent., Plut. VI, ) states (p. xviii) that this ms. contains only some of the Qq. onGn, the parenthetical qualification must refer only to (Oxford, Bodl. Libr.,Barocci. ). In their discussion of B (p. xxiii) they strangely remark that they ex-

clude

from this group despite its close affiliation with

and

in that portionof the work it contains. The listing in the “Siglas” is, thus, contradicted, in differentways, by both the description and the discussion, and the latter is, itself, incoher-ent. If offers a text closely similar to that of and , it ought to be reckoned apart of the B group for the Qq. on Gn.

. Catenae, vol. , p. xix; cf. also Fernández Marcos and Sáenz-Badillos, p. xxv.Petit’s edition of the Collectio coisliniana, published seven years after the Madridedition of Theodoret’s Quaest. in oct., is based upon many of the same manu-scripts, which she describes and classifies with great care. Though her discussion isa model of philological precision and leads to clear and significant conclusions,

her choice to adopt sigla different from those of her predecessors inevitably entailsmuch confusion for the reader who tries to compare her treatment of the medievaltradition with that of Fernández Marcos and Sáenz-Badillos.



been a late descendant of this tradition. In contrast, the manuscriptsof c

1, are true chains. In these, it is the biblical text, rather than the

Questions of Theodoret, that constitutes the organizing principle of

the collected material. The editors refer vaguely to numerous andrecurrent agreements of c

1 with c .42 Due to the antiquity of some of

the representatives of the C group, Fernández Marcos and Sáenz-Badillos suggest that its peculiar readings may, on occasion, repre-sent the original words of Theodoret corrupted or revised in theother branches. Clearly, they regard as most likely correct thosevariants supported by an agreement of A and C or of components of

each.The twelve manuscripts that do not fall within any one of thesethree families are regarded as of mixed character: as a group, morelike A and C than B, and closer to A than C. Nonetheless, the largely complete Rome, Bibl. Angel., Gr. () and Munich, Bayer. Staats-bibl., Cod. gr. ( ), perhaps Hoeschel’s exemplar, are said to offer atext very similar to that of family B, and Paris, Bibl. Nat. Gr. ( ),once wrongly regarded as Sirmond’s exemplar, a form of text ratherlike that of subgroup c.

Fernández Marcos and Sáenz-Badillos also remark on the affilia-tions of some of the recentiores that they consulted only at selectpassages.43 Yet, as they do not indicate for what sections these werecollated, the reader cannot know where the recentiores carried thereading of the text and can track their use only at the places where


lxix

. V. Fernández Marcos and Sáenz-Badillos, p. xxv. Petit, though editing thepassages representing the sources of Theodoret’s Questions, rather than the Ques-tions themselves, remarks (Catenae, vol. , pp. cxvif.) that the chains present amore complete text but one more frequently altered by deliberate scribal attemptsat correction. On p. cxvi, she presents a stemma for the manuscripts of the Collec-tio coisliniana, in which one can see the c manuscripts (her , , = FernándezMarcos and Sáenz-Badillos’ , , ) contrasted with the c

1 manuscripts (her , ,

= Fernández Marcos and Sáenz-Badillos’ , , ).. V. p. xxiii on Rome, Bibl. Apost. Vat., Pii II gr. (); Rome, Bibl. Apost.

Vat., Ottob. gr. (); Paris, Bibl. Nat., Coisl. ( ); Naples, Bibl. Naz., II B.

( ); p. xxiv on Florence, Bibl. Medic. Laurent., Plut. V. (); Rome, Bibl. Apost.Vat., Ottob. gr. (); Oxford, Bodl. Libr., Barocci. ( ).



they are cited for a reading not adopted. It is, thus, impossible for areader not in possession of the editors’ collations to assess the valueof any of these.

Indeed, the most serious defects of this critical edition are dueprecisely to such failures of transparency of method. It is of theessence of a scientific edition that other scholars be provided withinformation sufficient to reconstruct for each reading the rationalefor the editor’s preference. Given the large number of manuscripts,their very various contents, their many lacunas, and reprises, it wasnecessary to set at the head of each question or segment of text the

list of available witnesses. Instead, the editors have provided fourdifferent sorts of indications in four different places to delimit thecontents of their witnesses: the descriptions in the introduction; anelenchus at the beginning of each book, which apparently lists thosemanuscripts that contain at least the first question;44 marginal signsin the body of the work to mark points where manuscripts end, fail,begin, or begin anew; and notices in the apparatus to the first line of questions that are omitted by one or more codices. As a result, thereader may have to consult several points of reference to identify thesources for any particular question.45 And to assure himself that heis not missing any marginal signs of lacuna or reprise, he must con-stantly flip through many pages of text.

Furthermore, these scattered indications are incomplete. Thus, weare repeatedly told in the descriptions that a manuscript containsonly a part of a question. Yet there is sometimes neither marginal

sign nor note in the apparatus to indicate precisely where the textbreaks off or begins.46 At times, the various sources of information


lxx

. This is my own surmise, based on the observation that only some of themanuscripts cited in the ap. crit. of any given book appear in the introductory elenchus of that book. The editors provide no explanation of the criteria for inclu-sion in or omission from these introductory lists.

. In some cases, there will be only one sure indication that a ms. is availablefor a given question: a citation in the ap. crit . Of course, the absence of a ms. from

the apparatus of a given question or from the list at any one reading is no indica-tion that it does not carry the portion of text in question; v. pp. xxviiif.. We are told in the description (p. xv) that Patmos, ∆Iwavnnou tou` Qeolovgou,



are inconsistent47 or even contradictory.48 The result is that no readernot prepared to dedicate hours of checking and cross-checking cancompile a list of those manuscripts actually available for each section

of text.The usefulness of this edition is further impaired by other omis-


lxxi

() begins toward the end of Q. on Gn, but there is no marginal indication ornote in the ap. crit. to indicate just where. The same problem arises also in connec-tion with Patmos, ∆Iwavnnou tou` Qeolovgou, (: Which lines of Qq. and onGn does this contain?); Paris, Bibl. Nat., Gr. (: Which lines of Qq. , ,and onDt does this contain?); Oxford, Bodl. Libr., Barocci. ( b: Which lines of Qq. f.on Gn does this contain?); Dublin, Trinity Coll., D.. (: Which lines of Q. on

Gn does this contain?); Rome, Bibl. Apost. Vat., Vat. gr. ( : Which lines of Q. on Dt does this contain?).. It sometimes happens that a marginal sign of a lacuna is followed at some

distance by another without any indication (e.g., marginal sign, notice in the de-scription, or note in the ap. crit.) of the intervening point of reprise. Thus, forRome, Bibl. Apost. Vat., Vat. gr. ( ) a marginal sign of lacuna appears at theend of Q. on Lv and another at the end of Q. on Nm. As this ms. is not listedin the introductory elenchus for Nm, the reader will wonder if it contains any of Qq. – on Lv and how much of Qq. – on Nm. In other cases, a marginalsign of reprise is followed at some distance by another without any indication

(marginal sign, notice in the description, or note in the ap. crit.) of the interven-ing lacuna. For Rome, Bibl. Vallicell., E ( ), a marginal indication of reprise inthe middle of Q. on Gn is followed by another toward the end of the first third of Q. . The reader will wonder which Qq. between and this manuscript con-tains. As Fr. Fernández Marcos has pointed out to me, some of these confusionsare due to the disordered presentation of the questions or even the dislocation of folios within a manuscript. For Florence, Bibl. Med. Laur., Plut. VI. ( ) the suc-cessive indications of a beginning at Q. on Gn and a reprise at Q. , thoughthere is no intervening indication of lacuna, are due to the dislocation of folios– after folio ; as it is now bound, this manuscript presents Qq. – before

–.. According to the description (p. xiii), Florence, Bibl. Laur., Plut. VI. ()

should contain Qq. – on Nm, but there is a marginal sign indicating the be-ginning of the text at the head of the answer to Q. . Likewise, we are told (p.xviii) that Vienna, Österreich. Nat. Bibl., Theol. Gr. ( ) presents Qq. f. onGn before passing on to the answer of Q. , yet a marginal note at the end of Q. ,would indicate that this ms. contains also Qq. and , a conclusion confirmed by repeated citations of in the ap. crit. Again, the description of Patmos, ∆Iwavnnoutou Qeolovgou, () omits mention of Q. on Gn, yet a marginal noteat the head of Q. and references to in the ap. crit. indicate that it does con-

tain this question. Contrast also the description (p. xviii) of Patmos, ∆Iwavnnoutou` Qeolovgou, () with the marginal sign of lacuna at the end of Q. onGn.



sions and questionable choices. First, when family alliances are dis-solved by discordant readings, the editors cite the witnesses for thecompeting variants in the order of their numerical sigla rather than

in that of their families.49 The reader who wishes to check their con-clusions regarding the affiliations of the manuscripts must mentally reassemble them in the order of their groups a, a

1, a

2 , B, c, c

1, and the

mixed class.50 Second, in a handful of cases, the editors pay such def-erence to the majoritarian reading as to print nonsense51 or Greek that, while meaningful, is so odd morphologically or stylistically, asto raise suspicion.52 Third, their edition is rife with misprints. My

list of errata, though restricted to the text of the Quaest., will suggestthe scope of the problem.53

Since the publication of this edition, F. Petit has advanced thestudy of both the most ancient and the most recent branches of themanuscript tradition. In the “Enquête philologique” introducing heredition of the Collectio coisliniana, where she discusses many of themanuscripts upon which the Madrid edition of the Quaest. in oct. isbased, she demonstrates that two of the manuscripts used by Fer-nández Marcos and Sáenz-Badillos are apographs of still extantcodices and thus of no value for constituting the text. That portionof Rome, Bibl. Apost. Vat., gr. containing Qq. – on Gn (b )was copied from Madrid, Bibl. Nac., . This latter was also thesource for Qq. – on Gn for Munich, Bayer. Staatsbibl., gr. ( ),which drew the rest of its text from the early portion (tenth-eleventhcenturies) of the Vatican’s gr. .54 In consequence, b must be eject-


lxxii

. Thus, to pick an example at random, at line , p. for the reading fhsivn h[ they list B . But according to their own division (pp. xxiii, xxvf.),

represents class a 2 , class c

1, and , , , and are mixed and not to be assigned

to any of the three families.. Cf. also note above on their incoherent discussion of the B group.. V. my critical notes to Qq. and on Gn; and (th;n kov clon) on Ex;

(aujtoi....... hjxivwsan) on Dt; on Jos (mh; prosdokhvshte.......ajpolauvsesqai); and on Jgs; and on Ruth (to; de.......ajoivdimon, etc.).

. V ., e.g., my critical notes to Qq. , , (kreofagein), and on Gn, and

Q. on Dt.. V. “Introduction to the Greek Text: Corrigenda to the Madrid Edition.”. V. notes and above.



ed from class c and from a . Though these conclusions entailchanges in the evidence presented for many individual readings,they hardly shake the edifice of a text solidly constructed on such a

broad foundation of medieval witnesses.In conclusion, the edition of is the only fully critical edition

of Theodoret’s Quaest. in oct. It represents a major advance in ourknowledge of the text and will long remain indispensable. Nonethe-less, given its flaws of construction and presentation, it remains farfrom definitive.

F. This Edition

Though the largest contributions of our own edition will cer-tainly consist in its interpretive apparatus—the introduction, theexplanatory notes, and, above all, the translation—we believe thatit also makes an advance on both the quality of the Greek text andthe presentation of the ancient evidence. Indeed, I hope that thiswill be judged a competent editio minor to the editio maior of ourprede-cessors. It does not offer a thoroughgoing revision. I haveconsulted only a few manuscripts and mostly just to determine theirprecise contents. Nor have I studied the entirety of the apparatus criticus of the Madrid edition. My goals have been () to avoid print-ing any Greek for which I can find no plausible translation orwhich, in comparison to the rest of Theodoret’s corpus, displaysanomalies so gross as to defy acceptance; () to rid the text of obvi-ous errors; and () to set before the reader a conspectus siglorum and

textual notes that list the ancient witnesses and the evidence for thevariety of readings in a straightforward and easily comprehensiblemanner.

Given the length of this work, the total of textual notes, fewerthan ninety, is very restricted. A careful reconsideration of all thereadings adopted in the Madrid edition would probably raise nu-merous issues I have not considered. While some notes simply pres-

ent variants that, though significant for one reason or another, havenot been taken into the text, others offer some justification for a

LEC Edition

lxxiii



change I have thought necessary.55 In fifty places, I have preferred amanuscript reading rejected by Fernández Marcos and Sáenz-Badil-los56 and in eleven more I have ventured to insert a conjecture.57

Where the various possibilities would result in meanings substan-tially different, I have offered alternative translations that I hope willindicate what is at stake even to the Greekless reader. I have not,however, offered translations where I have made a change to what Iregard as more plausible Greek usage or where I could make nosense of the rejected reading.

It goes without saying that I have eliminated the numerous mis-

prints listed in the next section. Nevertheless, in the process of emending and repunctuating the Greek, I will have inadvertently in-troduced new errors of my own. I can only echo Schulze in begginglearned readers to collect these and bring them to my attention sothat we may eliminate them in a future reprinting.58


lxxiv

. In my textual notes I can only repeat attributions explicitly stated by Fer-nández Marcos and Sáenz-Badillos, who, of course, excluded (v. the Madrid ed.,

pp. xxviiif.) from their apparatus phonetic variants such as etacisms and the addi-tion of the epenthetic nu, sparsely attested errors obviously due to the misreadingof an exemplar, and clearly wrong singular readings. Thus, the reader of eithertheir edition or this edition cannot assume that the reading they adopted had thebacking of all the manuscripts not listed as carrying something different. I arrangethe variants in the order in which they decline from the truth, either because thesense of the reading becomes less appropriate or less clear or because something ischanged or omitted that, in my opinion, points to the true reading.

. V. the notes for the title, Qq. , , –, , , , , (tai~ oijkodomivai~), (oJ peravth~), , , , and (to;n tw'n sikhmitw'n a[dikon o[leqron,

deivknusi, and fhsin) on Gn; ( e{tera de;), , (katapevtasma, katapetavs-mato~, and th;n kov clon), ( ejn ejmoi; and toi~ uiJoi~), and on Ex; (ajposto-likwn ejpistolwn, mh;, and fasin), (ajphvlause), , and on Lv; and onNm; (aujtoi....... hjxivwsan and filikwn) and (first note) on Dt; (perivteme and ejpaggelivan), ( ejxevtinen) and on Jos; (to;.......peira` sai, etc. andajskhsai ga;r, etc. ), , , and (qerafivn and qerafivn) on Jgs; and (kai;e[stai o[noma, etc. and to; de.......ajoivdimon, etc.) on Ruth.

. V. the notes for Qq. (kreofagein) and (w/ jkodomhsqaiv) on Gn;, (touvtw/ de;), , and on Ex; and on Lv; on Dt; (mh;prosdokhvshte.......ajpolauvsesqai) on Jos; and on Jgs. Schulze, without a note,

prints w/ jkodomhsqaiv in Q. on Gn.; the others are my own suggestions, thoughsome or all of them, straightforward as they are, may well be attested in the mss.. In an appeal to his peritis lectoribus, Schulze begs (PG, vol. , coll. f.) ut



Throughout I have tried to ensure that the reader can always as-sess the distribution of the manuscript evidence. For each question Iprovide the list of available manuscripts, which is itself based on the

description of the manuscripts provided at the end of this essay.Both depend primarily on the information supplied in the editionof and on further clarifications graciously supplied by FatherNatalio Fernández Marcos. Armed with the lists provided in thiseditio minor, the reader will now be able to read with much fullercomprehension the apparatus criticus of the editio maior.59

So that the reader may test for himself the consistency of the fam-

ily alliances established by Fernández Marcos and Sáenz-Badillos, Ihave cited the manuscripts in the order of their classes, followed by the mixed manuscripts undivided by commas in the order of theirnumerical sigla, followed by the editors. Thus, if a single numberedmanuscript set off by a comma appears anywhere before the mixedcodices, that manuscript is the sole representative of its group to car-ry the reading in question.

I have reconfigured my predecessors’ Conspectus siglorum to makeit simpler and clearer. First, I restrict the use of class sigla to designatethe agreement of at least two manuscripts. Thus, I have ejected thesiglum a from the Quaest. on Gn, where a and c are the sole inde-pendent witnesses in sections that do not overlap. In Ex–Jgs a signi-fies the agreement of c and , but it is not used in Ruth, which is car-ried only by . I have eliminated altogether the group a

1, since its

membership, indicated as “ and its congeners,” seemed indeter-

minable.60 Since all the congeners figure among recentiores consultedonly for selected passages, no reader not in possession of the editors’

LEC Edition

lxxv

in rei litterariæ publicamque adeo utilitatem sua conferant consilia, si quid vel emen-dandum vel rectius disponendum esse videatur.

. The introductory list contains all manuscripts that carry at least a part of the question. Readers studying the evidence for any given variant must check theleft-hand margin for possible indications of points where the text breaks off or be-

gins in any of those manuscripts. Despite my best efforts, some of these lists may need emendation; I shall be very grateful for all corrections or clarifications.. V. “Siglas”: “ (y sus afines).”



collations can know which manuscripts are involved at any onepoint. I have, therefore replaced a

1 with , the only manuscript whose

readings can be certainly deduced from the editors’ a 1. Consequently,

in the listing of manuscripts in the apparatus, will often stand be-tween a and a

2 , and the siglum A will mean the agreement of a (c

and ), , and a 2 . Second, drawing the logical consequence from the

close relationship of with and , I employ the siglum B to referto the agreement of , , and in the Quaest. on Gn.61 Third, tak-ing stock of Petit’s conclusions regarding and b, I have eliminatedthe former from class a, yet, in consideration of its importance for

understanding the choices made by Schulze, I list it in parenthesesamong the mixed manuscripts for Qq. – on Gn and, from thenon, after the a manuscripts. I have eliminated b not only from class c but from the entire edition.

I have also intervened in the text to facilitate the understandingof both individual sentences and the development of discussions orarguments. I have repunctuated throughout with a system that,while observing the structure of the Greek periods, also takes intoaccount norms generally accepted in modern English. This has re-sulted in hundreds of changes.62 Most, though presupposing an un-


lxxvi

. Cf. note above.. My basic procedure has been: () to eliminate punctuation before conjunc-

tions coördinating clauses unless these introduce a clause whose subject is differentfrom that of the preceding coördinate clause, or the subject, though identical to thatof the former clause, is repeated or restated in the second clause, or the clauses

stand in a series of three or more; (

) to eliminate commas before subordinatingconjunctions unless (a) the conjunction introduces a clause nestled within themain clause; (b) the conjunction introduces a clause that is resumptive or explana-tory of a pronoun or phrase in the preceding main clause; (c) the conjunction in-troduces a causal clause or a clause with a causal nuance; (d) the conjunction intro-duces a non-restrictive relative clause; () to eliminate commas between verbs andclauses that play noun roles (subject, direct object, or predicate noun) in relation tothose verbs; () to eliminate commas between two members of a pair of words,phrases, or clauses, but to introduce them to mark words, phrases, and clausesarranged in a series of three or more; () to introduce commas (a) between coördi-

nate clauses in asyndeton or connected by particles rather than conjunctions, (b)after introductory adverbial clauses, (c) before and after subordinate clauses nestledwithin the main or another subordinate clause, and (d) before participial clauses



derstanding of Theodoret’s periods that is the same or very similarto that of my predecessors, will, I hope, result in greater clarity.Many, however, reflect a substantially different understanding.63 I

have observed the same system for both Theodoret’s words and hisquotations of Scripture, since the two form a literary unity, andTheodoret has often adapted, abbreviated, or combined the latterfor the purposes of his argument. Thus, though I have often adopt-ed their punctuation, I have not tried to reproduce in any systemat-ic way what I have found in either the Göttingen Septuagint or themost recent edition of The Greek New Testament.

The better to mark the argumentative stages in Theodoret’s dis-cussions, I have introduced paragraph divisions. As his replies ofteninclude brief notes on matters not germane to the questions, theparagraphing will help to isolate one topic from another and to sig-nal the commentator’s movement from one to another segment of the biblical text.64 In addition, to facilitate scholarly reference and

LEC Edition

lxxvii

that follow the main clause with no introductory conjunction; () to replace colonswith commas to introduce direct quotations, unless () the quotation is epexegeticor explanatory of a previous statement (e.g., the verb introducing the quotationgoverns a demonstrative pronoun or adverb, such as touto or ou{tw~, or the quota-tion itself is interrupted by gavr fhsi), in which case colons replace commas; () toset off parenthetical remarks and additions within pairs of colons, rather than, asoften in the Madrid edition, between a colon and a comma. In accord with rulesone through four, I have eliminated many commas before and after conjunctionssuch as o{ti, i{na, o{pw~, w{ste, and kaiv, while, in accord with rules four and five, Ihave added many after kaiv or in places where there is no conjunction. In a partialexception to rule , I have retained or inserted commas before o{ti when it serves asthe equivalent of a mark of punctuation introducing a direct quotation.

. Cf., e.g., our very different punctuations in Qq. . on Gn (dia; th;n a[krandiespavrh timh;n.......wJrismevno~ phv cewn ajriqmov~); . on Gn (kai; to; me;nswma.......th;n peribolh;n aujtou` ); on Ex (pro;~ de; touvtoi~.......oujde;n twntoiouvtwn ajkavqarton); on Ex (wJ" ejkeivnhn ijdei'n th;n oujsivan ajduvnaton—end); . on Lv (toi'" mevntoi oJlokautwvmasin ejpetivqeto.......ta;" hJmetevra"prosfevromen proseucav"); on Lv (o{ti gavr, ouj to; iJmavtion—end); on Lv ( ejn h| /, fhsivn,.......to; th~ aj fevsew~ e[to~); . on Dt (aijnivttetai de; .......th~poliorkiva~ ta;~ sumforav~); . on Dt ( ej fæ u{dato~ ajntilogiva~—end); . onJos (oJ eJbraivwn Qeov~........tw/ ` lovgw/ sou touvtw /); on Jgs ( ejpeidh; de; ojrgisqei;~oJ Qeo;~-end).

. As Schulze points out (PG vol. , coll. f.), many of the questions seem to



quotation, I have introduced numerical subdivisions into every question that exceeds forty lines in the edition of Fernández Marcosand Sáenz-Badillos. Since I thought the beginnings of sections

should always correspond with the paragraphing, the subdivisionsoccur at somewhat irregular intervals, usually equivalent to twenty-five to forty lines in their edition.

.

I hope that this list may be of use in the preparation of a revision

of the Madrid edition. In cases where errors have persisted from cen-tury to century, or an error in that can be traced to a careless use of an earlier edition, I list the editors: Sir. = Sirmond; Sch. = Schulze;F.M. = Fernández Marcos and Sáenz-Badillos. The line and pagenumbers refer only to the edition of F.M. I omit Picot’s readings, towhich I had only occasional access through Schulze’s citations. As Ihave been able to consult Schulze’s edition only as reprinted in thePatrologia latina, I may attribute to him errors due rather to the neg-ligence of Migne.

Quaest. in Gen.: Pf. tou'to (l. , p. ) : tou'tov Q. Qeovn (l. ,p. ) : -o;n Q. gavr, fhsi;, Sch. : gavr, fhsiv, (l. , p. ) F.M. : gavr

fhsi, | paraggeilai tisi; (l. , p. ) Sir. F.M. : -geilaiv tisi |katafronhvsete (l. f., p. ) : -hte | ei{rhke (l. , p. ) : ei[- |e{sthsen (l. , p. ) : e[s- | ou[k (l. , p. ) : oujk Q. h[nesan (l. ,

p. ) : h/ [nesavn | perhvgagen (l. , p. ) : par- | touta (l. , p. ) :tau- | tolmero;n (l. , p. ) : -mhro;n | o{nta (l. , p. ) : o[n-Q. prosiv eitai (l. , p. ) : -iv etai Q. suggrafeuv~ (l. ,p. ) : -u;~ Q. genhqhvto (l. , p. ) : -tw | dhvloi (l. , p. ) :


lxxviii

represent the later conflation of originally independent remarks on different vers-es; v. the preface to vol. , where, discussing the distribution of the Quaest. in oct. inthe Catena Nikephori, he remarks, intelleget Lector Quaestionum earum unam al-teramve subinde ad plura capita et commata pertinere, multisque constare partibus,quae in Catena non sine improbo labore quæri et colligi potuerunt.



-loi` | qeiva (l. , p. ) : hJ qeiva Q. sunav cqh (l. , p. ) : -hv cqhQ. ejnteuvqen (l. , p. ) : -euqen | hJmevrwn (l. , p. ) : -wn | ejnteuvqen (l. , p. ) : -euqen Q. summacia;n (l. , p. ) : -ivan |

mwrivwn (l. , p. ) : mo- Q. ejstin (l. , p. ) Sir. F.M. : e[- | th;n(l. , p. ) : th~ Q. prosegoreuvqh (l. , p. ) : prosh- Q.

eJbdovmh (l. , p. ) : -h/ Q. geravrwn (ll. f., p. ) : G-Q. Tigrhvta (l. , p. ) : Tiv- Q. pagida (l. , p. ) : -ivdaQ. guvnh (l. , p. ) : -nh; Q. surovmenon (l. , p. ) : surov-menovn Q. ta` (l. , p. ) : ta; | palaiva/ (l. , p. ) : -a` / | ejkeivnon (l. , p. ) : -einon | dexamevnon (l. , p. ) : -avmenon |

ejxwkeilavntwn (l. , p. ) Sir. Sch. F.M. : ejxo- | ajqavnato (l. , p. ): -to~ | ajnqrw`pwn (l. , p. ) : ajnqrwv- Q. ponhro;n, (l. , p. )Sir. Sch. F.M. : -ovn, Q. epi; (l. , p. ) : ej- | hJrmeneukevnai(l. , p. ) : hJrmh- Q. dumiourghsai (l. , p. ) : dhmi- |tuv fon (l. , p. ) Sir. Sch. F.M. : tu`- Q. fuvlh (l. , p. ) : -lhvQ. eJautovn (l. , p. ) : -tovn, Q. ∆Upedevxato (l. , p. ) :ÔUp- Q. pantw` n (l. , p. ) : pavn- Q. povrrw/ (l. , p. ) :-rw Q. prosevkei (l. , p. ) : - hvkei Q. kthvsi~ (l. , p. ) :kth- Q. ∆Alla; (l. , p. ) : ∆Allav | ej mpai` zein (l. , p. ) :-paivzein Q. grafhv o{ti (l. , p. ) : - fh; o{ti | dikaiwsuvnh/

(l. , p. ) : dikaio- Q. Melcisede; c (l. , p. ) Sir. Sch. F.M. :-de;k Q. poiei` esqai (l. , p. ) : poieis- Q. paidopoi> va~(l. , p. ) : -iiva~ Q. tessavrakonta (l. , p. ) : -aravkontaQ. ejpemevmyaito (l. , p. ) Sir. Sch. F.M. : ejpi- Q. aujtovn(l. , p. ) : -to;n Q. parpovn (l. , p. ) : k- Q. eJrmeneiva

(l. , p. ) : eJrmh- | tou'twÛ (l. , p. ) : Touv- | eJkravtune (l. , p.) : ej- | dw/ ` h (l. , p. ) : dwv /- Q. eJlaivw/ (l. , p. ) : ej- Q.

toujnantivo (l. , p. ) : -tivon | ajfei` le (l. , p. ) : ajfei` lev |prosqhvtw (l. , p. ) Sir. Sch. F.M. : -evtw | ka] /n Sir. : ka]n (l. , p.) F.M. : kajn Q. dia; toi (l. , p. ) : diav toi | frinh/ ` (l. , p.) : fron- Q. sofrwnounta (l. , p. ) : swfro- Q. o[ti(l. , p. ) : o{- Q. poiei` (l. , p. ) Sir. Sch. F.M. : -h/ ` Q. tov

y- (l. , p. ) : to; Y- Q. ejsti (l. , p. ) Sir. F.M. : e[-Q. oi|on (l. , p. ) : oi|oiv Q. ∆Iwshv f (l. , p. ) : -h; f

Corrigenda to the Madrid Edition

lxxix



Q. hjsqei;~ (l. , p. ) : hJs- | ∆Efai; >m (l. , p. ) : ∆Efr- Q.

ejmnhvsqe (l. , p. ) : -qh | ∆Iouvda (l. , p. ) Sir. Sch. F.M. : -da/ |ka] /n Sir. : ka]n (l. , p. ) F.M. : kajn | carapoioi ; (l. , p. ) :

caro- Quaest. in Ex.: Q. batou` (l. , p. ) : bav- | Qeov~ (l. ,p. ) : -o;~ | w[sper dev (l. , p. ) : w{sper de; | ej faivnwn (l. , p.) : ejmf- Q. parqhnikh;n (l. , p. ) : -qenikh;n Q. ajlieva~(l. , p. ) : aJ- Q. farmakoi~ (l. , p. ) Sir. Sch. F.M. :-mavkoi~ | farmakoi; (l. , p. ) Sir. Sch. F.M. : fav r- | xeraivnei(l. , p. ) : xh- Q. braduvglwso" (l. , p. ) : -sso" Q.

dev (l. , p. ) : dev, | khlivda~ (l. , p. ) Sir. Sch. F.M. : khli- |

eJbraivoi (l. , p. ) : -aioi Q. euJreian (l. , p. ) Sir. Sch.F.M. : euj- Q. ∆Iwvshppo" (l. , p. ) : -hpo" Q. e[sesqe

(l. , p. ) : -qev Q. gavr (l. , p. ) : ga;r Q. hj mwdivasan

(l. , p. ) : h/ J- | aij mwdiavsousin (l. , p. ) : aiJ- | ka]n (l. , p.) : kajn Q. memwrfwmevnon (l. , p. ) : memor- Q.

hJ mev rwn (l. , p. ) : -w` n Q. {W~ (l. , p. ) : ÔW~ Q. eu|ro~(l. , p. ) : eu\- | hJmevrwn (l. , p. ) : -wn | ejkdiafovrwn (l. ,p. ) : ejk d- Q. sfragivde~ (l. , p. ) Sir. Sch. F.M. : -gide~Q. dievglufen (l. , p. ) : -yen (I suppose the impf. to be an error, rather than a conscious choice among variants; Sir. and Sch.both have the aor.) Q. Qeo;~, (l. , p. ) : Qeo;~ Q.

sklhrovthta (ll. f., p. ) : -rovthtav | h[ /tese (l. , p. ) : h[ /th-Q. o{ ti (l. , p. ) Sch. F.M. : o{ti Q. noumeniva/ (l. , p.) : -mhniva Quaest. in Leu.: Q. ei[retai (l. , p. ) : ei[rh- |profetwn (l. , p. ) : profh- | eJrmeneivai~ (l. , p. ) : eJrmh- |

gegenemevna (ll. f., p. ) : -hmevna | qusivwn (l. , p. ) : -wn |gonorruv ei (l. , p. ) Sir. Sch. F.M. : -uei` | oJlokauvtwma te (l. ,p. ) : -kauvtwmav te | bomw` / (l. , p. ) : bw- | eJrmeneuta;~(l. , p. ) : eJrmh- Q. ajlla; (l. , p. ) : a[lla | tou;~ o[fei~

(l. , p. ) : tou;~ de; o[fei~ Q. klibavno~ (l. , p. ) : -ou~ | ejmpevsonto~ (l. , p. ) : -sovnto~ Q. qnhsimaivon (l. , p.) : -maion Q. kalh/ (l. , p. ) : -h/ ` | medh;n (l. , p. ) :

mhde;n Q. povte.......povte (l. , p. ) : pote;.......pote; | povte(l. , p. ) : pote; Q. khlivda~ (l. , p. ) Sir. Sch. F.M. :


lxxx



khli- Q. toiauvtoi~ (l. , p. ) : -tai~ Q. thvn (l. ,p. ) : th;n | eijseleluvqasi (l. , p. ) : -lhluvqasi | tou; (l. ,p. ) : -ou` | plemmelhmavtwn (l. , p. ) : plh- | skhvnh/ (l. ,

p. ) : -nh/ ` Q. ecei (l. , p. ) : e[- Q. movloc (l. ,p. ) : M- | movloc (l. , p. ) : M- Q. aj mpevlwna v (l. ,p. ) : -pelw` nav Q. ou\la~ (l. , p. ) Sch. F.M. : ou[- Q.

aj feivresin (l. , p. ) : aj faiv- Q. h{nika (l. , p. ) : -ivka | fasiv (l. , p. ) : -si; Q. sunh` fen (l. , p. –l. , p. ) :-yen Q. lekeuv ei (l. , p. ) : keleuv- Q. {W" (l. , p. ) :ÔW" Q. pa` sa~ (l. , p. ) : pav- Q. 38 ∆Ismah;l, (l. , p.

) Sir. Sch. F.M. : -hvl, | divdracmon tine;" (l. , p. ) Sir. Sch.F.M. : divdracmovn tine" Quaest. in Num.: Q. ajnatolh; (l. ,p. ) Sir. F.M. : ∆A- | ajrcousan (l. , p. ) : -kousan Q.

∆Israh;l. (l. , p. ) Sir. F.M. : -hvl. | leui> vtai (l. , p. ) Sir.F.M. : -itai Q. ijlasmou` (ll. f., p. ) : iJ- Q dw` /h (l. , p.) : dwv /h Q. ouj (l. , p. ) : su; | hJmevrwn (l. , p. ) : -wn |khlivda (ll. f., p. ) : khli- | to;, (l. , p. ) Sir. Sch. F.M. : to;Q. ghvra~ (l. , p. ) Sir. Sch. F.M. : gh- Q. 16 Diwvnumw~(l. , p. ) : -o~ Q. h[thse (l. , p. ) : h/ [- | ejpiqei` nai moi;

(l. , p. ) : -qei` naiv moi | skhnhvn (l. , p. ) : -h;n Q.

pa` sa~ (l. , p. ) : pav- Q. demiourgein (l. , p. ) :dhmi- Q. tov (l. , p. ) : to; Q. oJ miwv mati (l. , p. ) :oJ moi- | khlivda (l. , p. ) Sir. Sch. F.M. : khli- Q. me;n, (l. ,p. ) Sch. F.M. : mevn, Q. hJ Gw;g (l. , p. ) Sir. Sch. F.M. :h] Gw;g Q. lao;n; (l. , p. ) : -ovn; Q. tiniv (l. , p. ) :

-ni; Q. tiv (l. , p. ) : ti Q. ÔOti (l. , p. ) : { OtiQuaest. in Dt.: Q. ejriqmhqhnai (l. , p. ) : aj- | ka (l. , p. ) :kai; | fili;oneikouvntwn (l. , p. ) : v. critical note, ad loc. |ejsti;n (l. , p. ) : -tin | tauta fhsivn (l. , p. ) : tauta, fhsivn Q. aJgion (l. , p. ) : a{- | a{pa~ (l. , p. ) : -ax Q.

kai;paida~ (l. , p. ) : kai; p- Q. tuv fon (ll. f., p. ) Sir.Sch. F.M. : tu`- | kaiv rw / (l. , p. ) : -rw' Û Q. ejni; (l. , p. ) :

eJ- Q. farmakoi; (l. , p. ) Sir. Sch. F.M. : favr- | ejk (l. ,p. ) : ejx | didavskei (l. , p. ) Sir. Sch. F.M. : -h/ Q. foibon


lxxxi



(l. , p. ) Sir. F.M. : F- | sivkera/ (l. , p. ) Sch. F.M. : -a |panti; w/ | ejpiqumei` Sir. Sch. : panto;~ ou| a]n ejpiqumei` (l. , p.) F.M. : -h/ ` | fagh` / (l. , p. ) Sir. Sch. F.M. : fav- | ∆Iwvshppo"

(l. , p. ) Sch. F.M. : -hpo" Q. ejpta; (l. , p. ) : eJ- |ajpocrwvnto~ (l. , p. ) : -w~ Q. ∆Ea;n fhsi; Sch. : ∆Ea;n fhsiv (l. , p. ) F.M. : ∆Eavn, fhsiv Q. alhqev~ (l. , p. )F.M. : aj- Q. aj feina (l. , p. ) : -nai Q. pevswn (l. ,p. ) : -w;n Q. dedhmiouvrgetai (l. , p. ) : -ghtaiQ. Mariam (l. , p. ) : -a; m Q. ÔRoubei;n Sch. : ÔRoubi;n(l. , p. ) F.M. : - h;n | aujth;n: (l. , p. ) : -hvn: Q.

promeqouvmeno~ (l. , p. ) : promh- Q. ouranev (l. ,p. ) : ouj- Q. ejk Sina/ ` Sir. : ejn Sina/ ` Sch. : ejk Sina/ ` (l. ,p. ) F.M. : ejk -na` | ∆Iouvda (l. , p. ) Sir. Sch. F.M. : -da/ | o[ti

(l. , p. ) : o{- | Peiv ra / (l. , p. ) : p- | ∆Antilogiva~ (l. ,p. ) : aj- | lovgia (l. , p. ) : lovgia v | de; fhsivn (l. , p. ) :dev fhsin Quaest. in Ios.: intro. hJmevrwn (l. , p. ) : -wn Q.

Mwu>sh/ ` (l. , p. ) : -sh` Q. pepistekuian (ll. f., p. ) :pepisteu- | povte (l. , p. ) : po- Q. Mwu>sh/ ` (l. , p. ) :-sh' Q. a{te de; (l. , p. ) : a{te dh; Q. mevno~ (l. , p. ) :mevso~ | ajpolefqeiv~ (ll. f., p. ) : -lhfqeiv~ Q. e{th (l. ,p. ) : e[- Q. eja;n (l. , p. ) Sir. F.M. : ejavn Quaest. in Iud.:

Q. katorqwmevnwn (l. , p. ) Sir. Sch. F.M. : katw- | h{tth~(l. , p. ) : th~ h{tth~ Q. povte (l. , p. ) : pote; Q.

touto (l. , p. ) : -ton Q. klauqmw` na (l. , p. ) Sir. Sch.F.M. : K- | eijsakouvsate (l. , p. ) : eijsh- | lao;n (l. , p. )

Sir. Sch. F.M. : -ovn | sunocav~: Sch. : sunocav~ (l. , p. ) F.M. :-av~, | mou fhsiv (l. , p. ) : mou, fhsiv Q. uiJo;~ h]n Sir. Sch. : uiJo;~ (l. , p. ) F.M. : -ov~ Q. guvnh (l. , p. ) : -nh; Q.

katecouvswn (l. , p. ) : -wn | qei'an (l. , p. ) : -ivan Q.

sikhmivtai" (l. , p. ) : -mivta" Q. crhvzw (l. , p. )Sch. F.M. : crhv /- | timh;n (l. , p. ) Sir. F.M. : -hvn Q.

ejkdedihthmevnw" (l. , p. ) : -h/thmevnw" Q. de; (l. ,

p. ) : dev | ujperfuei~ (ll. f., p. ) : uJp- Q. toioutotrovpon (l. , p. ) : toioutovtropovn Q. ajnamnh/sqhtw (l. ,


lxxxii



p. ) : -hsqhvtw | skhvnhn (l. , p. ) : -h;n Q. leuivtai Sir. :leui> vtai (l. , p. ) Sch. F.M. : -itai Quaest. in Ruth: Q.

suggrav ywn (l. , p. ) : -fwn (I suppose the fut. part. to be an

error, rather than a conscious choice among variants; Sir. and Sch.both have the pres.) Q. ghvnh/ (l. , p. ) : -mh/ | thvn (l. , p. ) :th;n | ga;r, fhsi;, Sch. : gavr, fhsiv, (l. , p. ) F.M. : gavr fhsi,| spoudavxwn (l. , p. ) : -zwn | gunai' ka (l. , p. ) Sir. F.M. :-nai' kav | ∆Israh;l (l. , p. ) : -hvl | ∆Efravqa (l. , p. ) : -qav |∆Efravqa (l. , p. ) : -qav ( This name is always accented oxytone,though previous editors differ in regarding it as invariable or as sus-

ceptible of inflection. ) .

In a number of details, where editors have differed in their choic-es, Fernández Marcos and Sáenz-Badillos fail to observe consistency.In eight of ten occurrences they spell the name ÔIeremiva~ withrough breathing, but in two (l. , p. and l. , p. ) with smooth, asin the listing of proper nouns provided at the end of the second vol.of Hatch and Redpath’s concordance. In six of eight occurrences they accent Farev~ oxytone but in two (l. , p. and l. , p. ) printthe paroxytone form preferred by Wevers (v. Gn .). In seven of nine occurrences they accent Canaavn oxytone, but in two (ll. and, p. ) paroxytone as does Wevers (v. Gn .). In each case I haveregularized according to the predominant practice of the Madridedition.

Their spelling of forms of the verb givnomai / givgn- is also in-

consistent. In forty-three cases they adopt the former and in ten thelatter. As in fifty-one of these fifty-three occurrences they simply re-produce Schulze’s spelling, their variation cannot reflect the usageof the mss. The question of whether to retain or drop the gammaarises in only one of the two places (l. , p. ) where they differfrom Schulze’s reading (gignovmena F.M. : gin- Sch.), and here they provide no note. As in hellenistic koine, the pronunciation -n- had

replaced the earlier Attic -gn- (v., e.g., Mandilaris, sec. ,pp. f.),Ihave adopted givn- throughout.


lxxxiii



Their treatment of the forms of qavlatta is also problematic.They print forms in -ss- wherever the noun appears in Theodoret’squotations of Scripture (twenty-four examples). Where Theodoret

is speaking his own words, they print forms in -ttin sixteen places(variant readings in -ss- are recorded at p. , l. and , l. ) andforms in -ss- in seven others. See e.g., ll. –, p. , where one formin -tt- (for which they list a variant in -ss-) stands between two in-ss-. Among recent editors, G.H. Ettlinger and Y. Azéma also allow forms of qavlassa to jostle those of qavlatta in Theodoret’s directspeech; for the former v. Eran. p. , ll. f. and p. , ll. f., and for

the latter, ep. (Collectio patmensis ), ll. and . As Theodoret isunlikely to have intended such a variation of orthography in hisown words, and the manuscript evidence, on the whole, suggeststhat he used qavlatta when not quoting Scripture, I have changedthese seven forms in -ss- to the corresponding form in -tt-. I findthe same consistent division (qavlassa in biblical quotations,qavlatta in direct speech) in P. Canivet’s edition of Affect.

In eight places Fernández Marcos and Sáenz-Badillos aspirateforms of the pronoun aujtov~ used in a reflexive manner (l. , p. ; l., p. ;ll. and , p. ; l. , p. ; l. , p. twice; l. , p. ). Yetthe aspirated pronunciation auJ- had gone out of general usage be-fore Theodoret’s time, and later Greek relied on the reflexive formswith the prefixed eJ-; v. F.T. Gignac, pp. f. As in three of these pas-sages (l. , p. ; , p. ; and , p. ) forms of eJau- do havesome attestation in the mss., the editors should have adopted these,

not the simple forms. Indeed, their choice of just these eight placesseems arbitrary, as they did not aspirate forms of aujtov~ in suchclosely similar passages as [oJ Faraw;] oujk a]n aujtou' th;n gnwvmhn ejnhvllaxe (l. , p. ) or ej bav rune .......th;n kardivan aujtou' (l. ,p. ). Furthermore, the unaspirated forms were not uncommonly used for the reflexive possessive even in Homeric and classical Greek;v. Kühner-Gerth, part , vol. , pp. f. Thus, given the obsolesence

of the aspirated simple forms and the sparse representation of formsin eJau-, I have thought best to change all eight pronouns to the


lxxxiv



unaspirated auj-. But see my critical notes for Qq. on Ex and onNm, where the ms. evidence for a form with the prefixed eJ- is sub-stantial enough to raise doubts.

Finally, in some places they follow older conventions of word di-vision observed by Sirmond and Schulze, yet in others the practicenow current. In all appearances of the suffix -per except that at l. ,p. (o{te per), -per is attached to the preceding syllable. Cf. also a{te dh; at l. , p. with a{te dh; in all other occurrences; diavtoitouto at ll. f., p. with diav toi tou`to in all other occurrences;h{ ti" at l. , p. with h{ti" at both other occurences. Following

both Sirmond and Schulze, they combine katakravto~ once (l. ,p. ) and divide kata; kravto~ once (ll. f., p. ); as a glance atthe TLG indicates, the latter is the form preferred by modern editorseven in texts of authors contemporary to and later than Theodoret.The combination gavrtoi appears only at l. , p. ; for the divi-sion observed by modern editors, v. the examples assembled by Denniston, pp. f., esp. Her. ..: ouj gavr toi prokathmevnou~tosouto pro; th~ a[llh~ ÔEllavdo~ mouvnou~ pro; uJmevwn dei`ajpolevsqai. On the other hand, while it is their usual practice toprint o{tan and dhvpote, in several places they follow Sirmond andSchulze in printing o {tæ a]n (l. , p. ; l. , p. ; l. , p. ), andin two places more modern usage in dividing dhv pote (l. , p. andl. , p. ). In all these questions of word division, I have adopted thecurrent practice.


lxxxv



BIBLIOGRAPHY

: , ,, , .

Bardy, G., “Interprétation chez les pères,” DBS (), pp. –

———, “La littérature patristique des ‘Quaestiones et Responsiones ’surl’écriture sainte,” RB (), pp. –, –, –; (),pp. –, –, –

———,“Théodoret,” DThC, vol. (Paris ), pp. –

Bindley, T.H., and F.W. Green, The Oecumenical Documents of the Faith, thed. (London )

Brown, F., S.R. Driver, and C.A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, rev. ed. (Oxford )

Brown, R.E., and R. North, “Biblical Geography,” NJBC, pp. –

Canivet, P., Histoire d’une entreprise apologétique au Ve siècle (Paris )Chadwick, H.,“The Relativity of Moral Codes: Rome and Persia in Late

Antiquity,” pp. – of Early Christian Literature and the Classical In-tellectual Tradition, in honorem Robert M. Grant, ed. W.R. Schoedel andR.L. Wilken, ThH, vol. (Paris )

Crouzel, H., Origen , trans. A.S. Worrall (San Francisco )Dahood, M., “Ebla, Ugarit and the Old Testament,” Month (),

pp. –, –

Denniston, J.D., The Greek Particles, nd ed. K.J. Dover (London, etc. )Devreesse, R., Les anciens commentateurs grecs de l’Octateuch et des Rois,

StT, vol. (Vatican City )———, “Chaînes exégétiques grecques,” DBS, ed. L. Pirot, vol. : Abdeh-

Chronologie (Paris ), coll. –

Eissfeldt, O., The Old Testament: An Introduction, trans. P.R. Ackroyd (Ox-ford )

Ellis, E.E., “A Note on First Corinthians ,” JBL (), pp. –

Fernández Marcos, N.,“La edición de las Quaestiones in Reges et Paralipo-mena de Teodoreto,” Sef. (), pp. –

———, The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Versions of the Bible, trans. W.G.E. Watson (Boston, etc. )

———, “Some Reflections on the Antiochian Text of the Septuagint,” inStudien zur Septuagint Robert Hanhart zu Ehren, ed. D. Fraenkel,U. Quast, J.W. Wevers, MSU (), pp. –

lxxxvii



Gignac, F.T., A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, vol. : Morphology = TDSA, vol. - (Milan )

Guinot, J.N., L’Exégèse de Théodoret de Cyr, ThH, vol. (Paris )

———, “Theodoret von Kyrrhos,” TRE, vol. (Berlin/New York ),

pp. –Hill, R.C.,“Akribeia : A Principle of Chrysostom’s Exegesis,” Colloquium

(), pp. –

———, “Chrysostom on the Obscurity of the Old Testament,” OCP

(), pp. –

———, “His Master’s Voice: Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Psalms,” HeyJ (), pp. –

———, “On Looking Again at Synkatabasis ,” Prudentia (), pp. –

———, “Orientale lumen: Western Biblical Scholarship’s Unacknowledged

Debt,” in Orientale Lumen Australasia-Oceania : Proceedings, ed.L. Cross (Melbourne ), pp. –

———,“Psalm (): A Classic Text for Antiochene Spirituality,” IThQ (), pp. –

———, Reading the Old Testament in Antioch, Bible in Ancient Christiani-ty, vol. (Leiden/Boston )

———, “Theodore of Mopsuestia, Interpreter of the Prophets,” SE

(), pp. –

———, “Theodoret Wrestling with Romans,” StudP (), pp. –

Kahle, P.E., The Cairo Genizah, nd ed. (Oxford )

Keith, A.B., “Some Uses of the Future in Greek,” CQ (), pp. –Kelly, J.N.D., Early Christian Doctrines, th ed. (New York )

———, Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom, Ascetic, Preacher,Bishop (Ithaca, N.Y. )

Kühner, R., and B. Gerth, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache,part : Satzlehre, vol. (Hannover/Leipzig )

Lampe, G.H.W., The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. : The West fromthe Fathers to the Reformation (Cambridge )

———, Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford )

Liddell, H.G., R. Scott, H.S. Jones, and R. McKenzie, A Greek-English Lexi-con, th ed., With a Supplement (Oxford )Mandilaris, B.G., The Verb in the Greek Non-Literary Papyri (Athens )Martini, E., Indici e Cataloghi, part : Catalogo di Manoscritti greci esistenti

nelle biblioteche italiane, vol. : Catalogus codicum graecorum qui in bib-liotheca vallicelliana Romae adseruantur (Milan )

McKenzie, J.L., Dictionary of the Bible (London/Dublin )O’Connell, K.G., “Greek Versions of the Old Testament,” NJBC, pp. –

———, “Hebrew Text of the Old Testament,” NJBC, pp. –

Pásztori-Kupán, I., “Quotations of Theodoret’s De sancta et vivifica trinitate in Euthymius Zigabenus’ Panoplia dogmatica,” Aug (),pp. –

Quasten, J., Patrology, voll. (Utrecht )

Bibliography

lxxxviii



Rahlfs, A., Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments (Berlin )

Schäublin, C., “Diodor von Tarsus,” TRE, vol. (Berlin/New York ),pp. –

———, Untersuchungen zu Methode und Herkunft der antiochenischen Ex-egese, Theoph., vol. (Cologne/Bonn )

Schwyzer, E., and A. Debrunner, Griechische Grammatik, vol. : Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik (Munich )

Senior, D.,“Aspects of NT Thought: The Miracles of Jesus,” NJBC, pp.–

Stefani, A. de, Etymologicum gudianum (Leipzig )Ternant, P., “La Qewriva d’Antioche dans le cadre des sens de l’Écriture,”

Bib. (), pp. –, –, –

Trible, P., Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives,Overtures to Biblical Theology, vol. (Philadelphia )Groningen, B.A. van, Short Manual of Greek Palaeography, nd ed. (Leiden

)Vaux, R. de, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions, trans. J. McHugh (Lon-

don )Vawter, B., Biblical Inspiration , ThRes (London/Philadelphia )Weitzman, M.P., The Syriac Version of the Old Testament (Cambridge )Wellhausen, J., Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, th ed. (Berlin )Yadin, Y., Hazor: The Rediscovery of a Great Citadel of the Bible (New York

)Yarnold, E., The Awe-Inspiring Rites of Initiation: Baptismal Homilies of the

Fourth Century (Slough )Young, F.M., Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (Cam-

bridge )

———, From Nicaea to Chalcedon: A Guide to the Literature and Its Back-ground (Philadelphia )

Zorell, F., Lexicon hebraicum et aramaicum ueteris testamenti (Rome )

: , ,,

I. Ancient Texts and Versions

Masoretic Text (MT)

Kittel, R., K. Elliger, W. Rudolph, et al., Biblia hebraica stuttgartensia (Stuttgart –)

Septuagint (LXX)

Brenton, L.C.L., The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English (Lon-don ; rpt. Peabody, Mass. )

Bibliography

lxxxix



Rahlfs, A., Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX inter- pretes (Stuttgart )

Wevers, J.W., Genesis, Septuaginta, vol. (Göttingen )Wevers, J.W., and U. Quast, Exodus, Septuaginta, vol. . (Göttingen )

Wevers, J.W., and U. Quast, Leviticus, Septuaginta, vol. . (Göttingen )Wevers, J.W., and U. Quast, Numeri, Septuaginta, vol. . (Göttingen )Wevers, J.W., and U. Quast, Deuteronomium, Septuaginta, vol. . (Göttin-

gen )

New Testament

Aland, B., et al., The Greek New Testament, th ed. (Stuttgart )

Vulgate

Weber, R., and R. Gryson, Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem, th ed.(Stuttgart )

II. Concordance

Hatch, E., and H.A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Oth-er Greek Versions of the Old Testament, voll. (Oxford )

III. Catenae

Nikephoros Hieromonachos Theotokes, Seira; eJno;~ kai; penthvkonta uJpomnhmatistwn eij~ th;n ojktavteucon kai; ta; twn basileiwn,

voll. (Leipzig –)Petit, F., Catenae graecae in Genesim et in Exodum, vol. : Catena sinaitica,

CChr.SG, vol. (Brepols/Turnhout )

———, Catenae graecae in Genesim et in Exodum, vol. : Collectio Coislini-ana in Genesim, CChr.SG, vol. (Brepols/Turnhout )

———, La chaîne sur la Genèse: Édition intégrale, TEG, voll. – (Louvain–)

———, La chaîne sur l’Exode: Édition intégrale, voll. : Collectio coisliniana and : Fonds caténique ancien (Exode ,– ,), TEG, vol. (Louvain,

etc. )

:

I. Translation

Metzger, B.M., and R.E. Murphy, The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical Books (New York )

Bibliography

xc



II. Commentaries

Entire Bible

Brown, R.E., et al., New Jerome Biblical Commentary (Englewood Cliffs, NJ) = NJBC

Genesis

Clifford, R.J. and R.E. Murphy,“Genesis,” NJBC, pp. –

Rad, G. von, Genesis , trans. J.H. Marks, rev. ed., OTL (London )Speiser, E.A., Genesis, AncB, vol. (Garden City, N.Y. )

Exodus

Clifford, R.J., “Exodus,” NJBC, pp. –

LeviticusFaley, R.J.,“Leviticus,” NJBC, pp. –

Numbers

L’Heureux, C.E., “Numbers,” NJBC, pp. –

Deuteronomy

Blenkinsopp, J., “Deuteronomy,” NJBC, pp. –

Rad, G. von, Deuteronomy, A Commentary, trans. D. Barton (Philadelphia

)Joshua, Judges, Ruth

Coogan, M.D., “Joshua,” NJBC, pp. –

Gray, J., Joshua, Judges and Ruth, NCBC (London )Laffey, A., “Ruth,” NJBC, pp. –

O’Connor, M., “Judges,” NJBC, pp. –

– Samuel

Hertzberg, H.W., I & II Samuel: A Commentary, trans. J.S. Bowden

(Philadelphia )

Daniel

Hartman, L.F., and A.A. Di Lella, “Daniel,” NJBC, pp. –

Tobit

Nowell, I., “Tobit,” NJBC, pp. –

Psalms

Dahood, M., Psalms, voll., AncB, voll. –A (Garden City, N.Y. –)

Bibliography

xci



Amos

Barré, M.L., “Amos,” NJBC, pp. –

Zechariah

Cody, A., “Haggai, Zecariah, Malachi,” NJBC, pp. –

Matthew

Albright, W.F., and C.S. Mann, Matthew, AncB, vol. (Garden City, N.Y.)

Viviano, B.T., “The Gospel According to St. Matthew,” NJBC, pp. –

Mark

Harrington, D.J., “Mark,” NJBC, pp. –

Luke

Fitzmyer, J., The Gospel According to Luke I-IX, AncB, vol. (Garden City,N.Y. )

John

Brown, R.E., The Gospel According to John I-XII, AncB, vol. (GardenCity, N.Y. )

Perkins, P., “The Gospel According to John,” NJBC, pp. –

GalatiansFitzmyer, J.A.,“The Letter to the Galatians,” NJBC, pp. –

:, ,

Augustine

Dekkers, E., and J. Fraipont, Sancti Aurelii Augustini Enarrationes in Psalmos, Aurelii Augustini Opera, part , vol. : I-L, CChr.SL, vol.

(Turnhout )

Basil of Caesarea

Homilia in diuites

Courtonne, Y., Saint Basile, Homélies sur la richesse (Paris )

Homiliae in hexaemeron

Giet, S., Basile de Césarée, Homélies sur l’hexaéméron, SC, vol. bis (Paris)

Bibliography

xcii



Clement of Alexandria

Le Boulluec, A., Clément D’Alexandrie, Les Stromates, Stromate VII, SC, vol. (Paris )

Didymus the BlindNautin, P., and L. Doutreleau, Didyme L’Aveugle sur la Genèse, SC, voll.

and (Paris –)

Diodore of Tarsus

Quaestiones in octateuchum

Deconinck, J., Essai sur la chaîne de l'Octateuch avec une édition des com-mentaires de Diodore de Tarse qui s’y trouvent contenus (Paris )

In Psalmos Hill, R.C., Diodore of Tarsus, Commentary on Psalms – , Writings of the

Greco-Roman World, vol. (Atlanta )Olivier, J.-M., Diodori tarsensis Commentarii in psalmos, vol. : Commen-

tarii in psalmos I-L, CChr.SG, vol. (Brepols/Turnhout )

Eusebius of Caesarea

Heikel, I.A., Eusebius Werke, vol. : Demonstratio euangelica, GCS, vol.

(Leipzig )

Gregory of Nyssa

Oratio funebris in Placillam imperatricem

Spira, A., Gregorii Nysseni Opera, vol. . (Leiden )

Herodotus

Hude, C., Herodoti Historiae, vol. , rd ed. (Oxford )

Hippolytus

Bonwetsch, G.N., and H. Achelis, Hippolytus Werke, vol. , pt. : Hippolyt’s kleinere exegetische und homiletische schriften, GCS, vol. . (Leipzig)

Jerome

Labourt, J., Saint Jérôme, Lettres, vol. : Sancti Hieronymi Epistulae XCVI-CIX (Paris )

John Chrysostom

Opera omnia Montfaucon, B. de, Tou` ejn aJgivoi~ patro;~ hJ mw` n j Iwavnnou aj rciep.

Kwnstantivnou povlew~ tou` Crusostov mou ta; euJ riskov mena pavnta.

Bibliography

xciii



Sancti patris nostri Joannis Chrysostomi archiepiscopi Constantinopoli-tani opera omnia, voll. (Paris –) = PG, voll. –

Homiliae in Isaiam (in illud, Vidi dominum )

Dumortier, J., Jean Chysostome, Homélies sur Ozias, SC, vol. (Paris )

Josephus

Naber, S.A., Flauii Iosephi Opera omnia, voll. –: Antiquitates iudaeorum(Leipzig –)

Origen

De Principiis

Crouzel, H., and M. Simonetti, Origène, Traité des Principes, vol. : (Livres

III et IV ) Commentaire et fragments, SC, vol. (Paris )

Homiliae in Ezechielem

Borret, M., Origène, Homélies sur Ézéchiel, SC, vol. (Paris )

Philo

Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin

Marcus, R., Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis (London/Cambridge,Mass. )

De migratione Abrahami

Wendland, P., Philonis alexandrini Opera quae supersunt, vol. (Berlin)

The Suda

Adler, A., Suidae Lexicon, voll. (Leipzig –) = Lexicographi graeci,vol.

Tertullian

Braun, R., Tertullien, Contre Marcion, vol. : Livre II, SC, vol. (Paris)

Theodore of Mopsuestia

Fragmenta in Genesin et Exodum

Devreesse, R., Essai sur Théodore de Mopsueste, StT, (Vatican City )V. above (under Catenae ) Nikephoros Hieromonachos Theotokes, Seira;

eJno;~, etc.; excerpted fragg. reprinted in PG, vol. , coll. –

Bibliography

xciv



Commentarii in XII prophetas

Hill, R.C., Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on the Twelve Prophets,FOTC, vol. (Washington )

Commentarii in Epistolas S. Pauli Swete, H.B., Theodori episcopi mopsuesteni in epistolas S. Pauli Commen-

tarii, vol. (Cambridge )

Theodoret

Opera omnia

Schulze, J.L., Qeodwrhvtou ejpiskovpou Kuv rou { Apanta. Theodoreti cyren-sis episocopi opera omnia (Halle ff.) = PG, voll. –

Sirmond, J., Theodoreti episcopi Cyri Opera omnia in quatuor tomos distri-

buta (Paris )

Quaestiones in octateuchum

Fernández Marcos, N., and A. Sáenz-Badillos, Theodoreti Cyrensis Quaes-tiones in octateuchum, TECC, vol. (Madrid )

Siquans, A., Der Deuteronomiumkommentar des Theodorets von Kyros, OBS,vol. (Frankfurt am Main, etc. )

Quaestiones in Reges et Paralipomena

Fernández Marcos, N., and J.R. Busto Saiz, Theodoreti Cyrensis Quaestiones in Reges et Paralipomena, TECC, vol. (Madrid )

Commentarii in Psalmos

Hill, R.C., Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on the Psalms, FOTC, voll. f.(Washington –)

Commentarii in Canticum canticorum

Hill, R.C., Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on the Song of Songs, Early Christian Studies, vol. (Brisbane )

[Commentarii in Jeremiam ]1

Hill, R.C., Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on Jeremiah (Boston )

Commentarii in Epistolas S. Pauli

Hill, R.C., Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on the Letters of St Paul (Brook-line, Mass. )

Bibliography

xcv

. This work is of dubious attribution.



Epistulae

Azéma, Y., Théodoret de Cyr, Correspondance, vol. : Collectio patmensis,Epp. – , SC, vol. (Paris )

———, Théodoret de Cyr, Correspondance, vol. : Collectio sirmondiana,

Epp. – , SC, vol. (Paris )———, Théodoret de Cyr, Correspondance, vol. : Collectio sirmondiana,

Epp. – , SC, vol. (Paris )

Eranistes

Ettlinger, G.H., Theodoret of Cyrus, Eranistes (Oxford )

Graecarum affectionum curatio

Canivet, P., Théodoret de Cyr, Thérapeutique des maladies helléniques, SC,

voll. , . (Paris )Historia religiosa

Canivet, P., and A. Leroy-Molinghen, Théodoret de Cyr: Histoire des moines de Syrie, SC, voll. and (Paris , )

Quaestiones et responsiones ad orthodoxos

Papadopoulos-Kerameus, A., Qeodwrhvtou ejpiskovpou povlew~ Kuv rrou pro;~ ta;~ ejpenecqeivsa~ aujtw/ ` ejperwthvsei~ parav tino~ tw` n ejx Aijguvptou ejpiskovpwn ajpokrivsei~ (St. Petersburg )

Bibliography

xcvi



CONSPECTUS SIGLORUM

J. F. P.

. 1

Abbreviations. Numbers accompanying abbreviated names of books of the Bible refer

to the Quaest. in oct. Thus, “Gn –” would indicate that a manuscriptcontains Theodoret’s Qq. – on Gn, not chapters – of the biblicalbook.

. An annotation of the form “ (first line)” = the ms. contains thequestion of question and the first line of the answer (v., e.g., on a )

. An annotation of the form “Ex – (except question)” = the ms. con-tains the questions and answers of Ex –, but only the answer of Ex (v.,

e.g., on )Class a

: Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. gr. (th c.)2

A composite of three different manuscripts united by one binding. Only the first contains the Quaest. in oct., but, as this is in itself composite,each section is given its own siglum:

a: Gn (second half), –, (except last few lines of answer), (exceptquestion, . and first third of .), (first line)

c: Gn (except question and first third of answer), –; Ex; Lv; Nm;Dt; Jos; Jgs –, (first third)

These two, now separated from each other by the interposition of b (v.

xcvii

. This list is based on information drawn from the introduction (pp. xi–xxvi), the marginal notes, and the ap. crit. of the edition of N. Fernández Marcosand A. Sáenz-Badillos, and further clarifications generously and patiently providedby Fr. Fernández Marcos in correspondence. It represents an attempt to specify

which questions are available in a given manuscript, not the order in which they are actually found.. Ibid., p. xiii and F. Petit, Catenae, vol. , pp. xxxiii–xxxvi.



class c below), are parts of the same book and were copied by the samehand.

: Venice, Biblioteca Marciana, Ms. gr. I. = (th c.)

Ex (except question and first line of answer), –; Lv; Nm –, (except last couple of lines), (except question and first third of an-swer), –; Dt (first third of . and last third of answer), –; Jos;Jgs; Ruth

: Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cod. gr. (th c.)3

Gn –; Ex; Lv; Nm; Dt; Jos; Jgs (except question), –, (firstthird)

As the sections of this manuscript that contain the Quaest. in oct. are

copied from other extant manuscripts, it has no value as a witness to thetext; nonetheless it will be cited in this edition to illustrate its influenceon Schulze’s selection of readings.4 It becomes representative of thisgroup from Gn on.

Class a1

: Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Plut. VI. (th–th c.)

Gn –, . (first quarter), (except question and first half of answer),–, –, –; Ex; Lv; Nm; Dt; Jos; Jgs; Ruth

Class a2

: Patmos, ∆Iwavnnou tou` Qeolovgou, (th c.)

Gn (except question and first third of answer), –; Ex; Lv; Nm;Dt; Jos; Jgs (question only), (except first half of .), –

: Patmos, ∆Iwavnnou tou` Qeolovgou, (th–th c.)

Gn –; Ex; Lv; Nm; Dt; Jos; Jgs; Ruth

Class B

: Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Ancien fonds grec (th–th c.)

Pf.; Gn –; Ex –, (except question), –; Lv; Nm –, (firsthalf), (last quarter), –, (twice), –; Dt . (last few lines)–end,–, (last two lines), , (except question, ., and first third of .), –; Jos; Jgs –, (except last few lines), (last fifth of .), –;Ruth

Conspectus siglorum

xcviii

. For the date, a century later than that indicated by Fernández Marcos and

Sáenz-Badillos, v. F. Petit, Catenae, vol. , p. xxxiii, note .. V. F. Petit, Catenae, vol. , pp. xxxviif., li–liii. For the edition of J.L. Schulze, v.

sec. .D of the “Introduction to the Greek Text.”



: Oxford, Bodleian Library, Baroccianus (th c.)

Gn (except question and first line and a half of answer), –; Ex –, (except question), –; Lv; Nm; Dt; Jos (last third of an-swer), –; Jgs –, (last third of answer), (last couple of lines),–; RuthThis ms. will be cited with this group only from Lv on.

a: Oxford, Bodleian Library, Baroccianus (th–th c.)

Jgs (last third), –, (except last couple of lines of answer)

This is a leaf of (f. ) that has been bound with another portion of the Quaest. in oct. taken from a different book; v. the remarks on ms. b listed among the unaffiliated mss.5 As and a constitute just onesource, I have not noted the spot in Q. on Jgs, where breaks off and a begins nor that in Q. , where a breaks off and recommences.None of the text has been lost in the division of the codex.


Pf.; Gn –; Ex –, (except question), –; Lv –, (exceptquestion), –; Nm –, –; Dt; Jos pf.–, (except question),–; Jgs –, (first two thirds)

: Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Plut. VI. (th c.)

Gn (last few lines), –, f. (both only partially legible), (exceptquestion), –, (first third)

Class c: Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Plut. VI. (th c.)

Nm (last quarter), –, –, –; Dt f.; Jos; Jgs; Ruth

b: Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. gr.

Pf. Gn – (question only), –, (question and first quarter of an-

swer)This section of the manuscript (v. on a and c in class a above) containstwo texts both copied from Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional . The first, atranscription of Gn – was intercalated between a and c to supply the lacuna in the Quaest. in Gn in c .6 The second completed this sup-plement with the preface and Q. . As both sections are apographs of asurviving manuscript, b will not be cited in this edition.7

The Manuscripts and Their Contents

xcix

. N. Fernández Marcos and A. Sáenz-Badillos, p. xviii.. F. Petit, Catenae, vol. , p. xxxiv, note .

. Ibid., pp. xlviiif., lif., liv.



: Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, S. Marco (th c.)8

Pf.; Gn –, (first few lines), –, (first sixth), –; Ex –,–; Lv; Nm; Dt; Jos; Jgs; Ruth

: Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cod. gr. (th c.)Pf.; Gn; Ex –, –; Lv; Nm; Dt; Jos; Jgs; Ruth

: Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Coislinianus (th–th c.)9

Pf.; Gn; Ex –, –; Lv; Nm; Dt; Jos; Jgs; Ruth

Class c1

: Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cod. gr. (th c.)

Pf.; Gn –, (except question), –, (except question), –, –,–, –, –, –, –; Ex –, (except question)

: Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. gr. (th-th c.)

Pf.; Gn (except question), –, (first half), (except first half of .), –, –, –, (except question), –, –, –; Ex f., , –, –, –, , –, , –, , , –; Lv , –, –,–, , f., –, –; Nm f., f., , , –, –; Dt –, –,–; Jos; Jgs –, –; Ruth

: Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. gr. (th c.)Pf.; Gn , (except question), (except question), (except question),–, –, –, –, (except question), –, –, –; Ex –, –, –, –, –, –, –, –, –; Lv , –;Nm –; Dt –, . (first third), –; Jos; Jgs; Ruth

: Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Palat. gr. (th c.)

Pf.; Gn –, –, –, –, –; Ex –, –, –, –

Unaffiliated manuscripts: Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, Gr. (late th c.)

Pf.; Gn –, (except last few lines of answer); Ex (last fifth), –;Lv; Nm; Dt –, (except last few lines of answer)

: Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Theol. gr. (th c.)

Pf.; Gn – (except question), –; Ex; Lv; Nm; Dt –, (except lastcouple of lines of answer); Jos; Jgs

Conspectus siglorum

c

. For this date, which is different from that given by Fernández Marcos andSáenz-Badillos, v. F. Petit, Catenae, vol. , p. xxiii, note .

. Ibid., p. xxi.



: Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, B . (th or th c.)

Complete

: Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, E (th c. with later supplements)

In this ms., which has suffered the loss of the first two quaternios and of individual folios throughout, a hand of the th c. has replaced missingportions of the first fifteen questions on Gn.10 Though the Madrid edi-tion cites both the earlier and later portions by the same siglum ( ), Ihave introduced the following distinction:

(th c.): Gn. , (question and first few lines of answer), .–, (ques-tion only), (last third), –, –, . (first sixth), . (last threefifths)–end; Ex; Lv –, (first half), (except question and first

percent of answer), –; Nm –, (except last couple of lines of an-

swer), (except question and first couple of lines of answer), –(twice), –; Dt; Jos pf.–, (first half), (except question and firsthalf of answer), –; Jgs; Ruth

a (th c.): Gn. f., (except the question and first few lines of answer),f., (question and first two lines of .), (answer only), –,

(question and first two thirds of answer)


Pf.; Gn , (except the question and first few lines and last third of an-

swer), , –, –, –, , , (incomplete),11 –, (firsthalf), (except question and first third of answer), –,

: V. the description of this ms. in class B above.


Pf.; Gn –


Gn –,12 (except question), –

: Venice, Biblioteca Marciana, Ms. gr. I. = (th c.?)

Pf.; Gn –, –, , –, , , (except last few lines of answer)

The Manuscripts and Their Contents

ci

. E. Martini (#) tentatively identifies the later hand as that of Andreas Dar-marius.

. Fr. Fernández Marcos informs me that this ms. recommences in the midst of Q . , somewhere in the area corresponding to PG, vol. , col. B, thus some-where between ou|to~ ejk tw' n rJafai; >n and ajlazoneivan, its alternative spelling of

which is noted in the Madrid edition (l. , p. ).. I assume that the references to ms. in the notes on l. , p. (Q . on Gn)of the Madrid edition must be mistakes, perhaps for “.”



b: Oxford, Bodleian Library, Baroccianus (th–th c.)

Pf.; Gn , (first few lines), (last few lines), , (first couple of lines),

(second half), f., (first couple of lines), (except question and lasttwo thirds of .)13

Though these pages are bound with others containing questions on Jgs,the two portions of this ms. are drawn from different books; v. the re-marks on a in class B above.

: Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cod. gr. (th c.)

Ex (except question), f., (last few lines), –, (except question),

(through first half of . + one line in .), f., (except question),–, (except question), –, f., (except question), f., –,

(except question), –, (except question), f., (except ques-

tion); Lv –, (except question), ,14 , (except question), –,–, (except question), f.; Nm –, –, –, (except ques-tion), –; Dt –, (except question), f., (except question),–, , , (except question), (except question), , (exceptquestion), (except question), (except question), , (except ques-tion), –; Jos pf.–, (except question and one fifth of .), –,–, –, ; Jgs , –, (except question), , , f., –, (firstthree quarters); Ruth

: V. the description of this ms. in class a above.

: Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Ancien fonds grec (th c.)

Gn (except question), –; Ex; Lv; Nm –, (first few lines),

(last percent), –; Dt; Jos; Jgs; Ruth

: Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Ancien fonds grec (th c.)

Gn –, (first third of .), (except question and first line of an-swer), –; Ex –, –, (except part of question and first coupleof lines of answer), –; Lv; Nm; Dt; Jos; Jgs; Ruth

: Dublin, Trinity College, D.. (th–th c.)Gn (except last five lines of answer)

Conspectus siglorum

cii

. This manuscript does not carry any of Qq . f. In the Madrid edition, themarginal sign of a lacuna in the middle of the second sentence of Q . (p. ) is amistake. The lacuna at that point occurs in a, not b .

. I assume that the references to ms. in the notes on ll. and , p. (Qq .f. on Lv) of the Madrid edition must be mistakes.



.

Manuscript Classes

a in Qq on Gn not used

in Qq. on Ex–Jgs = the agreement of c and

in Qq. on Ruth not used

a 1

in Qq. on Gn–Ruth replaced by “ ”

a 2

in Qq. on Gn–Jgs = the agreement of and


A in Qq on Gn = the agreement of c, , and a 2 in Qq. on Ex–Jgs = the agreement of a, , and a

2


B in Qq. on Gn = the agreement of , ,

in Qq. on Ex = the agreement of and

in Qq. on Lv–Jgs. = the agreement of , (or a ),

and

in Qq. on Ruth = the agreement of and

c in Qq. on Gn–Lv = the agreement of , , and in Qq. on Nm–Ruth = the agreement of , , , and

c 1

in Qq. on Gn–Ex = the agreement of , , , and

in Qq. on Lv–Ruth = the agreement of and

C in Qq. on Gn–Ruth = the agreement of c and c 1

Other Signs and Abbreviations

cod. A codex alexandrinus (V. note to Q. on Jgs.)

cod. B codex vaticanus (V. note to Q. on Jgs.)

codd. codices = the reading of all the manuscripts

F.M. N. Fernández Marcos and A. Sáenz-Badillos

F.P. Françoise Petit

inc. Marks manuscripts that are lacking something other than

or more than just the initial query of a Q.

J.P. conjectured by John Petruccione

om. omit

Signs and Abbreviations

ciii



Pic. J. Picot

Q. Quaestio, i.e. both the initial query and Theodoret’s response

Sch. J.L. Schulze15

Sir. J. Sirmond[ ] Citation within brackets indicates that a manuscript has no

value as an independent witness.

|| where a manuscript breaks off

| where a manuscript begins after a lacuna

= in the body of a textual note, introduces the translation of a

rejected variant

* marks manuscripts lacking the query that introduces the Q.

(Sch.) An abbreviated name enclosed in parentheses indicates thescholar, other than Fernández Marcos and Sáenz-

Badillos, who attests to a reading of a manuscript or an

edition.16

Conspectus siglorum

civ

. N.B. in reff. to Schulze’s edition, there are two different forms of citation:() “n. to col. ” indicates that the call-out number appears next to theword or phrase of col. that is illustrated or supplemented by reference to the

Catena Nikephori; () “n. , col. ” directs the reader to note , which standsbelow the excerpts from the Catena Nikephori in col. .

. These parentheses are used repeatedly to attribute to Schulze reports of readings adopted by Picot. As I am informed by Mr. P. Goodman, a cataloguer atthe Library of Congress, the national databases list only two copies of Picot’sedition in the United States: one at Harvard and the other at the University of Chicago.



The Questions on the Octateuch




QEODWRHTOU EIS TA APORA THS

QEIAS GRAFHS KAT ' EKLOGHN

Praefatio in Quaestiones in octateuchum

Kai; a[lloi me; n filomaqei'" a[ ndre" ejphggeivlanto dialu'sai

th'" qeiva" grafh'" ta; dokou' nta ei\ nai zhthvmata, kai; tw' n me; n

aj naptuvxai to; n nou' n, tw' n de; ta;" aijtiva" dhlw'sai, kai;

aJpaxaplw'" ajpofh' nai safh' ta; toi'" polloi'" ouj toiau'ta

fainovmena. su; de; diaferov ntw", fivltate paivdwn ÔUpavtie, tou'tov

me pra'xai parwvtruna", polloi'" wj fevlimon e[sesqai kai; tovde to;

suvggramma livan ijscurisavmeno". ou | dh; e{ neka kaivtoi tou'

swvmato" oujk eu\ moi diakeimev nou, tov nde proeilovmhn to; n pov non,

oujk ejmautw' / ge qarrw' n, ajlla; tw' / tau'qæ ou{tw suggrafh' nai

prostetacovti. aujtou' gavr ejstin ejpidei'xai th; n ej n tw' / gravmmati

kekrummev nhn diav noian: aujto;" ga;r kaj n toi'" iJ eroi'" eujaggelivoi"

, C, b = mss.

Title Qeodwrhvtou eij~ ta; a[pora th~ qeiva~ grafh~ katæ ejkloghv n

( F.P. ) : Qeodwrhvtou eij~ ta; a[pora th~ qeiva~ grafh~ (F.P.) (-rivtou J.P.); cf. Photius, Bibl. cod. (Eij~ ta; a[pora.......th` ~ grafh` ~) = “Theodoret on Questions regarding Holy Scripture” : Tou` makarivou Qeodwrhvtou eij~ ta;a[pora th~ qeiva~ grafh~ katæ ejkloghv n (Qeodorivtou, F.P.) [ ] (Sch.) =“St. Theodoret on Selected Questions regarding Holy Scripture” : Tou` makarivouQeodwrhvtou ejpiskovpou Kuvrou, eij~ ta; a[pora th~ qeiva~ grafh~ katæ

ejkloghv n Sir. (Qeodorivtou) Sch. = “St. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyr, on Selected Questions regarding Holy Scripture” : Qeodwrivtou ejpiskovpou Kuvrou, eij~ ta;zhtouvmena kai; ajporouvmena th~ palaia~ kai; qeiva~ grafh~ (J.P.) =“Theodoret, Bishop of Cyr, on Issues and Questions of the Old Testament of Holy

Scripture” : Qeodwrhvtou tou` ejpiskovpou Kuvrou, eij~ ta; zhtouvmena a[porath~ palaia~ diaqhvkh~ (J.P.) = “Theodoret, Bishop of Cyr, on Disputed Questions of the Old Testament” : om. F.M.



THEODORET ON SELECTED QUESTIONS

REGARDING HOLY SCRIPTURE

Preface

Previous scholars have promised to resolve apparent problems in

holy Scripture by explicating the sense of some, indicating the back-

ground of others, and, in a word, clarifying whatever remains un-

clear to ordinary people.1 And you, my dearest son, Hypatius,2 above

others have pressed me to undertake this task and insisted that the

present work would be widely useful. Hence, although I am not in

good health, I have undertaken this project, trusting not in myself, of

course, but in the one who dictated this manner of composition for

the Scriptures, as it belongs to him to bring to the fore the meaning

concealed in the text.3 He it was, after all, who in the sacred Gospels

presented his teaching in parables and then provided the interpreta-

. Theodoret refuses to concede that Scripture contains real problems. There isonly a certain difficulty in dealing with these questions, which better informedpeople ( filomaqei'") should be able to resolve.

. In his Dissertatio on Theodoret’s life and works, Schulze describes (PG,vol. , col. ) Hypatius as an associate and assistant, perhaps a coadjutor, of The-odoret in his latter years.

. For other places where Theodoret concedes his dependence on divine grace

in his exegetical task; v. Thdt., Ps. – proem. and Epp. Paul. proem. Unearthingthe sense hidden in the words (th; n ej n tw/ ` gravmmati diav noian) is the commen-tator’s job, for which he depends on the Spirit.



kai; parabolikw'" th; n didaskalivan prosev fere kai; tw' n

aij nigmatwdw'" eijrhmev nwn ejpoiei'to th; n eJrmhneivan.a paræ aujtou'

toiv nun th'" noera'" ajkti' no" aj ntibolhvsa" tucei' n, tw' n tou'

panagivou pneuvmato" ajduvtwn katatolmh'sai peiravsomai. jIstevon de; pro; tw' n a[llwn aJpav ntwn wJ" ouj c a{pante"

suvmfwnon e[ cousi th'" ejrwthvsew" to; n skopov n, ajllæ oiJ me; n

dussebw'" ejrwtw'si, dielevgcein oijovmenoi th; n qeivan grafhv n: nu' n

mev n, wJ" oujk ojrqa; paideuvousan, nu' n dev, wJ" ej nantiva

didavskousan: oiJ de; filomaqw'" zhtou'si kai; poqou'sin euJrei' n to;

zhtouvmenon. kajkeiv nwn toiv nun ejmfravxomen, su; n qew' / fav nai, ta;

blavsfhma stovmata, th'" qeiva" ejpideiknuv nte" grafh'" kai; th; nsumfwnivan kai; th; n ajrivsthn didaskalivan, kai; touvtoi", wJ" oi |ov n

te, tw' n ejpaporoumev nwn th; n luvsin prosoivsomen. ajrch; n de;

touvtwn poihvsomai th'" ktivsew" th; n ajrchv n: au{th ga;r ajrch; kai;

prooivmion th'" qeopneuvstou grafh'".

Theodoret on Selected Questions

a. Mt .–



tion of what he had said in riddles.4a My appeal, therefore, shall be

to gain illumination of the mind from him, so I may endeavor to

penetrate the innermost sanctuary of the most Holy Spirit.5

Now, to begin with, you should know that not all inquirers share

the same purpose. Some inquire irreverently, believing they find

holy Scripture wanting: in some cases, not teaching right doctrine,

in others, giving conflicting instructions. In contrast, others, long-

ing to find an answer for their question, search because they love

learning. Accordingly, it is my intention to stop the blasphemous

mouths of the former, please God, by demonstrating the consisten-cy of holy Scripture and the excellence of its teaching, and also, to

the extent possible, provide the latter with solutions to their difficul-

ties. I shall begin with the beginning of creation, which is the begin-

ning and introduction of the inspired Scripture.

Preface

. Though finding riddles primarily in the Old Testament, eastern commenta-tors also regarded the Gospel parables (parabolikw`~) as an oblique form of com-munication (aij nigmatwdw~); cf. Chrysostom’s Proph. obscurit. (CPG #).

. For Theodoret the task of scriptural commentary is an exalted, in fact, in-spired, role. In the preface to his commentary on Song of Songs he speaks in very

similar terms: “Exegesis of holy Scripture.......requires a mind with wings that canbehold the divine and will dare to enter the innermost sanctuary of the Spirit(katatolmwvsh~ tw` n ajduvtwn tou` Pneuvmato~).



QUAESTIONES IN GENESIN

Tiv dhv pote mh; protevtace th'" tw' n o{lwn dhmiourgiva"

qeologivan oJ suggrafeuv";

Metrei' n ei[wqe toi'" paideuomev noi" hJ qeiva grafh; maqhvmata

kai; toi'" me; n teleivoi" prosfevrein ta; tevleia, toi'" ajtelevsi de;

ta; stoiceiwvdh kai; th' / sfw' n dunavmei sumbaiv nonta.a ejpeidh;

toiv nun aijguvptioi th; n oJrwmev nhn ktivsin ejqeopoivoun, touvtoi" de;

sundiavgwn ejpi; plei'ston, oJ ∆Israh;l tauvth" th'" dussebeiva"

metevlacen, aj nagkaivw" ta; peri; th'" ktivsew" aujtoi'" prosfevrei

maqhvmata kai; didavskei diarrhvdhn o{ti kai; ajrch; n e[sce tou' ei\ nai kai; o{ti poihth; n e[ cei to; n tw' n o{lwn Qeov n.b ouj mh; n oujde;

to; n th'" qeologiva" paralevloipe lovgon. to; ga;r fav nai to; n

oujranov n, kai; th; n gh' n, kai; ta; a[lla o{sa th'" ktivsew" movria

genhta; kai; dei'xai touvtwn dhmiourgo; n to; n tw' n o{lwn Qeo; n

ajrkou'san toi'" tovte qeologivan proshv negke: tw' n me; n ga;r

ejdhvlwse th; n ajrchv n, tou' de; euJrei' n oujk i[scuse th; n ajrchv n. kai;

ajiv >dion toiv nun ejgnwkw;" to; n Qeo; n kai; poihth; n tou' panto;"oj nomavsa" kai; ajgaqo; n poihthv n,c tw' / fusiologikw' / to; qeologiko; n

mavla sofw'" sunhvrmosen.

[Allw" te kai; promemaqhvkesan oiJ tau'ta didaskovmenoi tou'

Qeou' to; ajiv >dion: ajpostalei;" ga;r eij" Ai[gupton para; tou' Qeou'

tw' n o{lwn, oJ qespevsio" Mwu>sh'" prosetav cqh toi'" oJmofuvloi"

, , c, * , a b = mss.

a. Cor .f.mmb. Gn .mmc. Gn ., , , , , , , mm



eijpei' n, oJ w]n ajpevstalkev me pro;" uJ ma' ":d to; de; oJ w]n tou' aji>divou

dhlwtikov n. dh'lon de; toi'" filomaqevsin wJ" ejkei' na pro; touvtwn

ejrrevqh: ejkeiv nhn ga;r aujtoi'" th; n didaskalivan e[ti th; n

Ai[gupton oijkou'si proshv negke, tau'ta de; ej n th' / ejrhvmw/sunevgrafe.

Tiv dhv pote th'" tw' n ajggevlwn oujk ejmnhvsqh dhmiourgiva";

Oujde; n sterro; n ei\ con bevbaion oiJ nomoaqetouvmenoi: aujtivkagou' n, meta; polla; kai; a[ frasta qauvmata, th; n eijkov na tou'

movscou qeo; n aj nhgovreusan.a oiJ de; ta; tw' n kthnw' n ij ndavlmata

rJa/divw" ou{tw qeopoihvsante",|| tiv oujk a] n e[drasan eij tw' n


||26b

d. Ex .

, , c, * , a (inc.) b(inc.) [ ] = mss.

a. Ex .mm



sent me to you.”3d Now, “He Who Is” conveys eternity, and it will be

obvious to the attentive that that statement was made before the

teaching in this chapter. He taught them the former while they were

still living in Egypt but composed this chapter in the wilderness.

Why did he not mention the creation of the angels?1

The people who were receiving the Law had no firm and stablebasis; after all, immediately after many ineffable marvels, they hailed

the image of the calf as a god.2a So if those people could so easily re-

gard the likenesses of cattle as gods, what would they not have done,

Question

scension in accommodating scriptural expression to the limitations of humanreaders/listeners. On the use of this term in his homilies on ch. of Gn, v. R.C. Hill,“On looking again at synkatabasis .”

. Theodoret does not realize that the terms used to refer to God differ in thevarious Hebrew traditions that have been combined to create the present text of Gn and Ex; v. sec. of the “Introduction to Theodoret’ s Life and Works.” Accord-ing to Ex ., a verse belonging to the Elohist tradition (from Hebrew ‘elohim,“God”), God first revealed his name “Yahweh” to Moses, for “‘I am who I am’ is thename Yahweh transposed into the first person.” In contrast, according to the Yah-wist tradition in Gn ., God had been invoked by the name “Yahweh” from thetime of Adam. While Theodoret understands the use of the verb “to be” inthe name of Ex . as a statement of God’s eternal existence, R.J. Clifford regardsthe Hebrew as “probably the causative form, ‘cause to be, create’”; v. “Exodus,” onEx .–.

. This is the first of several questions regarding angels, which testify to theo-logical debate about, and the interest in, angels in Theodoret’s church. Chrysos-tom had raised the same point at the opening of the first of his eight early sermonson Genesis (ser. . in Gen.), to which Theodoret may have referred as he com-posed this question. In his commentary on Colossians (on .), Theodoret showssome concern about the proliferation in Phrygia and Pisidia of the cult of the an-gels, especially Michael. In his belief that Scripture is “full of this doctrine” (i.e. re-garding the angels), the commentator here has recourse to an ingenious rationali-zation; in fact, while angels appear throughout the Bible, there is little in the way of speculative angelology.

. Chrysostom had adduced the same line of argument in hom. . in Gen.



ajoravtwn fuvsewn th; n gnw'sin ejdevxanto; ou | cavrin, mev cri th'" tou'

∆Abraa;m teleiovthto", oujdeni; tw' n pavlai aj nqrwvpwn diæ ajggevlou

oJ tw' n o{lwn dielev cqh Qeov".

|∆Epi; de; th'" [Agar prw'ton ajggevlou mnhvmhn oJ qespevsio"

ejpoihvsato Mwu>sh'",b kai; mavla eijkovtw": tuvpo" ga;r hJ [Agar th'"

palaia'" diaqhvkh" kata; to; n qei'on ajpovstolon. to; ga;r [ Agar,

fhsiv, Sina' o[ ro" ejsti;n ejn th' / ∆Arabiva/, sustoicei' de; th' / nu' n

∆Ierousalhv m.c ejpeidh; toiv nun diæ ajggevlwn oJ novmo" ejdovqh:

diatageiv", gavr fhsi, diæ ajggevlwn ejn ceiri; mesivtou:d kai; pavlin,

eij ga; r oJ diæ ajggevlwn lalhqei;" lovgo" ejgevneto bev baio":e

kai; mavlaprosfovrw" oJ tw' n o{lwn Qeo;" diæ ajggevlou kai; th'" douleiva"

aj nevmnhse kai; ta; peri; tou' tecqhsomev nou paido;" prohgovreusen.f

{ Oti de; ktisth; n e[ cousi fuvsin kai; a[ggeloi, kai; ajrcavggeloi,

kai; ei[ ti e{terov n ejstin ajswvmaton, plh; n th'" aJgiva" triavdo", hJ

qeiva safw'" hJma'" didavskei grafhv. uJmnei' n ga;r kai; touvtoi"

Dabi;d parakeleuv etai oJ profhvth": aijnei' te ga;r aujtovn, fhsiv,

pavnte" oiJ a[ggeloi aujtou' , aijnei' te aujtovn, pa' sai aiJ dunav mei"

aujtou' :g kai; th; n aijtivan didavskwn, ejphvgagen, o{ti aujto;" ei\ pe,

kai; ejgenhvqhsan,|| aujto;" ejneteivlato, kai; ejktivsqhsan:h kai;

pavlin, ej n eJtevrw/ yalmw' /, oJ poiw' n tou;" ajggevlou" aujtou'

pneuv mata kai; tou;" leitourgou;" aujtou' puro;" flovga.i kai; oiJ

trei'" makavrioi pai'de" ej n th' / kamiv nw/ to; n qei'on u{mnon

uJ faiv nonte" kai; to; panavriston ejkei' no kai; livan aJrmovdion

eijrhkovte" prooivmion, eujlogei' te, pavnta ta; e[ rga Kurivou, to;n

Kuv rion, eujqu;" ejphvgagon, eujlogei' te, a[ggeloi Kurivou, to;n Kuv rion, j pa' sai aiJ dunav mei" Kurivou, to;n Kuv rion.k ajlla; ga;r

parevlkon oi\mai peri; touvtwn makrhgorei' n: pa'sa ga;r hJ

qeovpneusto" grafh; th'sde th'" didaskaliva" aj navplew".


b. Gn .mmc. Gal .mmd. Gal .mme. Heb .mmf. Gn .–mmg. Ps .mmh. Ps .mmi. Ps . mm j. Dn .f. (LXX)mmk. Dn . (LXX)

||13

|13



if they had acquired knowledge of powers of an invisible nature?

This is why, up to the time of Abraham, a fully mature man, the God

of the universe never communicated with the people of olden times

by means of an angel.The divinely inspired Moses first made mention of an angel in

the case of Hagar,b and rightly so; Hagar was a type of the old

covenant. According to the holy apostle, “Hagar is Mount Sinai in

Arabia, and corresponds to the present Jerusalem.”c So, as the Law

was given through angels—“It was ordained through angels by a

mediator”;d and again, “If the message declared through angels was

valid”e

—it was also entirely appropriate for the God of the universeto employ an angel to speak of her slavery and to foretell the fate of

the child that was to be born.f

Now, holy Scripture clearly teaches us that angels and archangels

and anything else incorporeal—the Holy Trinity excepted—have a

created nature. Thus, the prophet David commands them also to

sing God’s praise: “All you his angels, sing his praise; sing his praise,

all you his powers.”g And to convey the reason, he adds, “Because he

spoke, and they were made; he gave orders, and they were created.”h

And again in another psalm: “He who makes his angels winds and

his ministers a flaming fire.”i Furthermore, the three blessed young

men in the furnace composed their divinely inspired hymn and, be-

ginning with a very fitting introduction, sang that excellent verse:

“Bless the Lord, all you works of the Lord,” and then, “Bless the

Lord, angels of the Lord; j bless the Lord, all you powers of the

Lord.”3k In fact, I feel it is superfluous to go on at length about them;all the inspired Scripture is full of this doctrine.

Question

. For the Greek version of this passage of Dn, v. L.F. Hartman and A.A. Di Lel-la, “Daniel,” on .– and K.G. O’Connell, “Greek Versions of the Old Testa-ment,” p. , and cf. the allusion to the same hymn at the end of Q. .



Prou>pavrcousin oujranou' kai; gh'" a[ggeloi, h] su; n touvtoi" ejgev nonto;

Peritta;" me; n ejgw; ta;" toiauvta" zhthvsei" uJpeivlhfa: tiv"

ga;r o[ nhsi" prosgenhvsetai toi'" ejgnwkovsi to; n th'" tw' n

ajggevlwn dhmiourgiva" kairov n; oi\da de; kai; to; n qei'on ajpovstolon

tw' / qaumasivw/ Timoqevw/ paregguw' nta, paraggei'laiv tisi mh;

eJterodidaskalei' n mhde; prosev cein muvqoi" kai; genealogivai"

ajperavntoi".a

ejrw' de; o{mw" o{per sumbaiv nein uJpeivlhfa tw' / skopw' /th'" qeiva" grafh'": ajperivgrafon mov nhn ejdidav cqhmen ei\ nai th; n

qeivan fuvsin, a{te dh; a[ktiston ou\san kai; a[ narcon kai; ajiv >dion,

ta; dev ge ajrxavmena tou' ei\ nai perigegrammev non e[ cei dhlonovti

to; ei\ nai. oujkou' n, kai; ajswvmaton levgonte" ei\ nai tw' n ajggevlwn

th; n fuvsin, perigegrav fqai fame; n aujtw' n th; n uJpovstasin. pw'"

ga;r a[ n ti" nohvsai ciliva" ciliavda" kai; muriva" muriavda", kata;

to; n qei'on Danihvl,b mh; e{kaston logizovmeno" ej n ijdiva/ ei\ nai

perigrafh' /;

jAllæ o{ti me; n perigegrammev nhn e[ cousin oiJ a[ggeloi th; n

oujsivan oujdev na aj nterei' n oi\mai. kai; ga;r tw' n aj nqrwvpwn e{kaston

uJ fæ eJ no;" e[ fh tetav cqai khdemonivan oJ despovth" Cristov":

oJ ra' te, gavr fhsi, mh; katafronhvshte eJno;" tw' n ejlacivstwn tw' n

pisteuov ntwn eij" ejmev, o{ti oiJ a[ggeloi aujtw' n .......dia; panto;"

oJ rw' si to; provswpon tou' patrov" mou tou' ejn ouj ranoi' ".c kai; eJkavstw/ de; e[qnei a[ggelon ej festav nai fhsi; n hJ qeiva grafhv: oJ


, , c , * , * b(inc.) [ ] = mss.

a. Tm .f.mmb. Dn .mmc. Mt . (NT var.)mm



Did the angels come into being before heaven and earth, or werethey made along with them?

I regard this sort of question as over-curious; after all, what ben-

efit could accrue from a knowledge of the exact moment of the cre-

ation of the angels? I am also aware that the holy apostle urges the

admirable Timothy “to instruct certain people not to teach any dif-

ferent doctrine or give heed to mythological fables and endless ge-

nealogies.”1a

Yet I shall state what I believe is in keeping with thepurpose of holy Scripture.2 We were taught that the divine nature

alone is uncircumscribed in that it is uncreated, without beginning,

and eternal, whereas things that have had a beginning of existence

clearly have limits to their existence. Therefore, even though we de-

clare that the angels possess an incorporeal nature, we say that their

substance is circumscribed. Indeed, how could anyone, in the words

of the divinely inspired Daniel, form the notion of “thousands of

thousands and myriads of myriads”b without understanding each

one to exist within its own limits?

I believe, however, that no one contests that the angels have a be-

ing that is circumscribed. Christ the Lord said that each human be-

ing has been placed in the care of a single angel: “Be careful not to

despise one of the least of those who believe in me, because their an-

gels gaze constantly on the face of my Father in heaven.”c Holy

Scripture also says that an angel presides over each nation. The an-gel that conversed with the prophet Daniel mentioned a ruler of the

Question

. Though he wishes to convey the impression that such issues are trivial, The-odoret is aware that Origen (Princ. ..; v. H. Crouzel and M. Simonetti, vol. ,note , pp. f.), Basil (Hex. .), and Gregory Nazianzen (Or. .f.) had placedthe creation of the angels before that of heaven and earth, and that Theodore of Mopsuestia (in his commentary on Genesis; v. Devreesse, Essai, p. and note )

had rejected this view. Theodoret’s argumentation follows closely the logic and thescriptural citations marshalled by Theodore; v. Guinot, L’Exégèse , pp. f.. Though qualifying this question as frivolous, Theodoret wishes to provide



ga;r tw' / profhvth/ Danih;l prosdialegovmeno" a[ggelo" kai;

a[rconta persw' n ei[rhke,d kai; a[rconta eJllhv nwn,e kai; Micah;l

to; n a[rconta tw' n ijoudaivwn.f kai; Mwu>sh'" de; oJ mevga" ej n th' /

wj /dh' / fhsin, o{te diemev rizen oJ {Uyisto" e[qnh, wJ" dievspeiren uiJou;" ∆Adav m, e[sthsen o{ ria ejqnw' n kata; aj riqmo;n ajggevlwn Qeou' .g

eij toiv nun oJ me; n touvtwn, oJ de; ejkeiv nwn a[rcein ejtav cqh, e{kasto"

de; tw' n aj nqrwvpwn uJpo; th; n eJ no;" frontivda telei', eu[dhlon wJ"

perigegrammev nhn e[ cousi th; n oujsivan.

Eij de; tou'to ajlhqev", w{sper ou\ n ajlhqev", tovpou a[ra

prosdevontai: |mov non ga;r to; qei'on, wJ" ajperivgrafon, oujk ej n

tovpw/. eij de; to; perigegrammev non ej n tovpw/, pw'" oi |ov n teprou>pavrcein oujranou' kai; gh'" tou;" ajggevlou"; ouj ga;r o[ nto"

tou' fevronto", pw'" e[ nesti to; ferovmenon ei\ nai;

jAllav fasiv tine" crh' nai levgein prou>pavrcein oujranou' kai;

gh'" tou;" ajggevlou": ajggevlwn, gavr fasi, oujk o[ ntwn, pw'" oJ tw' n

o{lwn uJmnei'to Qeov";a

() jAllæ oiJ tau'ta levgonte" ajgnoou'sin wJ" kai; aj navrcou"

aujtou;" kai; aji>divou" ou |to" oJ lovgo" poiei': eij ga;r ejdei'to tw' n

uJmnouv ntwn oJ tw' n o{lwn Qeov", aj ei; de; touvtou" ei\ cen uJmnou' nta",


|26b

d. Dn ., mme. Dn .mmf. Dn .mmg. Dt .

a(inc.) , , c , * , (+ a) b [ ] = mss.

l. fasi , , b, Sir. Sch. ( -in) : om.? J.P. : fhsiv F.M. = “he asks, ‘how was .......?’” Cf. fasiv tine~ in the preceding clause. The verb might well be agloss, for the transposed order of and (oujk o[ ntwn fasiv) suggests that its

place in the text was uncertain.

a. Jb .mm



Persians,d a ruler of the Greeks,e and Michael the ruler of the Jews.3f

And in his song, the mighty Moses declares, “When the Most High

divided the nations, when he dispersed the children of Adam, he set

boundaries for nations according to the number of God’s angels.” g

If, then, one was appointed to rule this group and another that, and

each human being lives in the care of an angel, they clearly have a

being that is circumscribed.

Now, if this is in fact true, and, of course it is, it follows that they

require a place; only the divinity, uncircumscribed in being, does

not occupy a place. But if what is circumscribed occupies a place,how could the angels have come into being before heaven and earth?

If there was nothing to offer support, how could anything exist that

needed to be supported?

Yet, some commentators claim that the angels preëxisted heaven

and earth, for “if there were no angels,” they ask, “how was the God

of the universe praised in song?”a

() Those who make this claim do not realize that it presents the

angels as without beginning and without end. If the God of the

universe needed singers of his praises and always had them singing

his praises, it follows that the angels would be co-eternal with

Question

an answer that will be in accord with the Antiochene exegetical practice of at-tempting to discern the general purport (oJ skopov~) of each passage of Scripture;thus he promises to provide what he takes to be the general sense of biblical pas-sages dealing with angels (o{per sumbaiv nein uJpeivlhfa tw/ ` skopw/ ` th~ qeiva~grafh~); v. sec. of the “Introduction to Theodoret’ s Life and Works.”

. Theodoret’s argument recalls a passage in his commentary on Daniel (on.), written some twenty-five years earlier; there Theodoret had cited together Dt. and Mt . to show that each individual enjoys the protection of a guardianangel while each nation lives under the guidance of a specially delegated archangel.



sunaiv >dioi a[ra oiJ a[ggeloi tw' / tw' n o{lwn Qew' /. eij de; oujk aj eiv,

ajllæ, o{teper hjboulhvqh, touvtou" ejdhmiouvrghsen, h\ n a[ra ti"

aijw; n ej n w | /per tou;" uJmnou' nta" oujk ei\ cen oJ tw' n o{lwn Qeov".

oujkou' n ouj dei'tai tw' n uJmnouv ntwn oJ despovth" Qeov":|| |aj nendeh'ga;r e[ cei th; n fuvsin. diæ ajgaqovthta de; mov nhn kai; ajggevloi", kai;

ajrcaggevloi", kai; pavsh/ th' / ktivsei to; ei\ nai dedwvrhtai.

Poivan de; kai; leitourgivan ei\ con pro; th'" ktivsew" o[ nte",

oujdeno;" o[ nto" tou' th'" touvtwn wj feleiva" prosdeomev nou; o{ti

ga;r eij" th; n tw' n aj nqrwvpwn khdemonivan uJpourgou'si tw' / tw' n

o{lwn Qew' / mavrtu" oJ qei'o" ajpovstolo" bow' n, ouj ci; pavnte" eijsi;leitourgika; pneuv mata, eij" diakonivan ajpostellov mena dia; tou;"

mevllonta" klhronomei' n swthrivan ; b oujkou' n eu[dhlon wJ" hJmei'"

me; n th'" ejkeiv nwn ejpikouriva" deovmeqa. oJ de; Qeo;" h{kista mev n

tino" ej ndehv", a[busso" de; w] n ajgaqovthto", hjboulhvqh kai; toi'"

mhdamh' mhdamw'" ou\si metadou' nai tou' ei\ nai.

() |∆Alla; ga;r oiJ prou>pavrcein oujranou' kai; gh'" tou;"

ajggevlou" ijscurizovmenoi wJ" ijscuro; n hJmi' n kai; a[macon

probavllontai ejkei' no to; para; tou' Qeou' tw' n o{lwn pro;" to; n

∆Iw;b eijrhmev non: o{te ejpoivoun a[stra, h[ /nesavn me .......pavnte"

a[ggeloiv mou.c kai; ouj sunorw'sin wJ" th' / tetavrth/ hJmevra/ su; n tw' /

hJlivw/ kai; th' / selhv nh/ ta; a[stra parhvgagen oJ tw' n o{lwn Qeov".d

eijko;" de; tou;" ajggevlou" su; n oujranw' / dhmiourghqh' nai kai; gh' /

i{ na, kai; to; fw'" oJrw' nte" ejx oujdeno;" uJpokeimev nou

dhmiourgouvmenon,e kai; to; sterevwma ej n mevsw/ tou' u{dato"

sumphgnuvmenon,f kai; th; n uJgra; n oujsivan cwrizomev nhn th'" gh'",kai; th; n gh' n a{ma tw' / qeivw/ lovgw/ pantodapw'" diakosmoumev nhn

blasthvmasi, kai; tæ a[lla pav nta pro;" to; qei'on ginovmena

bouvlhma,g gnw'si, diæ w | n oJrw'sin, wJ" kai; aujtoi; ktisth; n e[ cousi

th; n fuvsin, paræ aujtou' to; ei\ nai dexavmenoi. kai; ga;r oJ qei'o"

ajpovstolo" tw' / kovsmw/ aujtou;" suzeuvgnusi, levgwn, qevatron

ejgenhvqhmen tw' / kovsmw/, kai; ajggevloi", kai; ajnqrwvpoi".h


|2a

b. Heb .mmc. Jb .mmd. Gn .–mme. Gn .mmf. Gn .mmg. Gn .–mmh. Cor .mm

||10 |10a



God.1 If, on the other hand, they did not always exist, and he

created them only when he wished, it follows that there was a time

when the God of the universe did not have anyone singing his

praises. The Lord God, therefore, does not need anyone to sing hispraises, for he is by nature free of need. Instead, it was only out of

his goodness that he conferred existence on angels, and archangels,

and all of creation.

Furthermore, what service would they have rendered if they had

existed before creation when there was no one in existence who

needed their assistance? In fact, the holy apostle cries out that they

minister to God by caring for human beings: “Are they not all min-istering spirits sent on a mission of service for the sake of those who

are due to inherit salvation?”b Thus, it is obvious that, whereas we

need their assistance, God has no need of anyone, yet, being an

abyss of goodness, he wanted to give a share of existence to those

who did not exist at all.

() Nevertheless, those who insist that the angels preëxisted

heaven and earth quote to us as a convincing and irrefutable proof

text the statement that the God of the universe made to Job: “As I

made the stars, all my angels sang my praises.”c But this is to miss

the fact that it was on the fourth day that God brought the stars

into being along with the sun and the moon.d Now, the angels

were probably created along with heaven and earth so that on

seeing the light created from no preëxistent material,e the

firmament fixed in the midst of the waters,f the water separated

from the land, the earth beautified with all kinds of plants as soonas God spoke, and everything else made at God’s discretion,g they

might realize, through what they saw, that they also have a created

nature and receive existence from him. The holy apostle, in fact,

links them to the world in saying, “We have become a spectacle to

the world, to angels, and to human beings.”h

Question

. Epiphanius of Salamis (haer. ..–.) may have provided Theodoret withthis further objection; v. Guinot, p. .



jEgw; de; tau'ta oujk ajpofainovmeno" levgw: tolmhro; n ga;r

ajpofantikw'" oi\mai levgein peri; w | n hJ qeiva diarrhvdhn ouj levgei

grafhv: ajllæ o{per toi'" eujsebevsi logismoi'" aJrmovttein uJpevlabon

ei[rhka. ejkei' no mev ntoi aj nagkai'on eijdev nai, wJ" a{panta ta; o[ nta,plh; n th'" aJgiva" triavdo", ktisth; n e[ cei th; n fuvsin.

sunomologoumev nou de; touvtou, tw' / th'" eujsebeiva" ouj lumaiv netai

lovgw/ to; pro; oujranou' kai; gh'" gegenh'sqai levgein tw' n ajggevlwn

tou;" dhvmou". to; de; logomacei' n eij" oujde;n crhvsimon, ejpi;

katastrofh' / tw' n ajkouovntwn i ajpagoreuv ei diarrhvdhn oJ qei'o"

ajpovstolo".

Eij h\ n hJ gh', pw'" ejgev neto; levgei ga;r oJ suggrafeuv", hJ de; gh'

h\ n.a

jHlivqion kai; a[gan aj nov hton to; ejrwvthma. oJ ga;r eijpwv n, ejn

aj rch' / ejpoivhsen oJ Qeo;" to;n ouj rano;n kai; th;n gh' n,b|| oujk ajiv >dion

e[ fh th; n gh' n, ajlla; meta; to; n oujranov n, h] su; n tw' / oujranw' /

dexamev nhn to; ei\ nai. a[llw" te, oujde; ajpoluvtw" ei\pen oJ

suggrafeuv", hJ de; gh' h\ n, ajlla; to; eJxh'" sunarmovsa", hJ de; gh'

h\ n ajov rato" kai; ajkataskeuvasto",c tou'tæ e[stin, ejgev neto me; n

uJpo; tou' tw' n o{lwn Qeou', e[ti de; ajovrato" h\ n, ejpikeimev nou tou'

u{dato", kai; ajkataskeuvasto", mhdevpw kosmhqei'sa th' / blavsth/

mhde; aj nqhvsasa leimw' na", kai; a[lsh, kai; lhvi>a.


||26b

i. Tm .

a, , , C, a b(inc.) [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .mmb. Gn .mmc. Gn .



Now, I do not state this dogmatically, my view being that it is

rash to speak dogmatically where holy Scripture does not make an

explicit statement; rather, I have stated what I consider to be consis-

tent with orthodox thought. Of course, we should all realize thisfact: that everything in existence, with the exception of the Holy

Trinity, has a created nature. If this is granted, the claim that the

masses of angels were created before heaven and earth does not un-

dermine the orthodox position. Yet the holy apostle clearly prohibits

“disputation which does no good but only ruins those who are lis-

tening.”i

If the earth was in existence, how did it come to be, since the his-

torian says, “The earth was in existence”?a

This is a silly, foolish question. He who said, “In the beginning

God made heaven and earth,”b did not say that the earth was eternal,

but that it received its existence after, or along with, heaven. Fur-

thermore, the historian did not simply say, “The earth was in exis-

tence,” but connected it with what follows: “The earth was invisible

and formless.”c That is, though made by the God of the universe, it

was invisible, because still covered by the water, and formless, be-

cause not yet arrayed with growth or sprouting meadows, groves,

and crops.

Question



Oujk ejdivdaxen hJma'" oJ Mwu>sh'" o{ti kai; ta; u{data ejdhmiouvrghsen oJ Qeov";

Kai; mh; n eijrhkwv", hJ de; gh' h\ n ajov rato" kai; ajkataskeuvasto",

kai; skovto" ejpavnw th' " aj buvssou,a e[deixe meta; th'" gh'"

dhmiourghqei'san tw' n uJdavtwn th; n fuvsin. kai; peri; tou'

sabbavtou de; nomoqetw' n, oJ tw' n o{lwn Qeo;" ou{tw" e[ fh: e}x

hJ mev ra" ej rga' /,.......th' / de; eJ bdov mh/ sav bbaton, ajnavpausi" Kurivw/ tw' /

Qew' / sou:.......ejn ga; r e}x hJ mev rai" ejpoivhse Kuv rio" oJ Qeo;" to;n ouj ranovn, kai; th;n gh' n, kai; th;n qavlassan, kai; pavnta ta; ejn

aujtoi' ",b wJ" ei\ nai dh'lon o{ti pa' n oJtiou' n ej n touvtoi" o[ n, h]

oJrato; n h] ajovraton, h] aijsqhto; n h] nohtov n, plh; n th'" qeiva"

oujsiva", ktisth; n e[ cei th; n fuvsin. kai; oJ qeiovtato" de; Dabi;d

eijrhkwv", makav rio" ou | oJ Qeo;" ∆Iakw; b bohqo;" aujtou' , hJ ejlpi;"

aujtou' ejpi; Kuv rion to;n Qeo;n aujtou' , to;n poihvsanta to;n ouj ranovn,

kai; th;n gh' n, ejphvgage, th;n qavlassan, kai; pavnta ta; ejn aujtoi' ".c

Eij to; fw'" oJ Qeo;" ejdhmiouvrghse, pw'" aujto;" to; skovto"

ejpoiv hsen; ej nantiva ga;r tau'ta ajllhvloi".

() ∆Enantiva me; n ajllhvloi", ajllæ aj nagkai'a toi'" aj nqrwvpoi"

ajmfovtera. to; me; n ga;r pro;" ejrgasivan te kai; filoponivansunergei' toi'" aj nqrwvpoi",|| kai; uJpodeivknusi ta; oJrwvmena, kai;

to; n touvtwn poihth; n uJmnei'sqai paraskeuavzei: to; de;

dianapauv ei, kai; neourgei' tou;" aj nqrwvpou", kai; to; n ejk th'"

ejrgasiva" ejgginovmenon dialuv ei pov non, kai; tou;" aj nqrwvpou" me; n


||10a

a, , , c, * , a [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .mmb. Ex .– (LXX var.)mmc. Ps .f.

a, , , C, a(+ inc.) [ ] = mss.



Did Moses fail to teach us that God created the waters as well?

In fact, after saying, “The earth was invisible and formless, and

darkness was over the deep,”a he showed that the waters, like the

earth, have a nature that is created. The God of the universe spoke in

similar terms also when legislating about the Sabbath: “Work on six

days, but on the seventh there is to be a Sabbath, a rest, for the Lord

your God; in six days the Lord God made heaven and earth, the sea,and all that is in them.”1b So it is clear that, with the exception of the

divine essence, whatever is in them, visible or invisible, material or

spiritual, has a created nature. Indeed, after declaring, “Blessed is the

one whose helper is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the Lord his

God, who made heaven and earth,” the divinely inspired David pro-

ceeded to mention, “the sea, and all that is in them.”c

If God created the light, how could he have made the darkness, as

these are opposed to each other?

() While they are opposed, they are both still necessary to hu-

man beings. One assists men with work and industry, brings visible

things to their attention, and prompts them to sing the praises of their maker. The other gives rest and renewal and relieves the weari-

ness caused by labor; it gathers people to their homes, and gives an-

imals security in foraging. The holy David teaches us this quite ex-

Question

. While the more widely attested LXX form of this verse merely transliteratesthe Hebrew “Sabbath,” (savbbata), Theodoret’s Antiochene text glosses thetransliteration with the term aj navpausi~ (“rest”); this textual peculiarity appearsalso in the quotations of Ex .f. in Cyr., Ador. (ad loc.; PG, vol. , col. C)and (on Lv ; ib., col. B); v. J.W. Wevers and U. Quast on Ex ..



plicitly: “You put darkness in place, and night fell. All the beasts of

the forest travel about in it: lion cubs roaring to hunt and to search

for their food from God. The sun rose, and they gathered and will

sleep in their lairs. Man will go to his work and his business untilevening.”a After saying this, he expressed admiration for the Cre-

ator’s magnificence: “How magnificent are your works, O Lord! You

made everything with your wisdom.”b

Thus, we have precise knowledge of the necessity of darkness.And it is simple to grasp the truth that it is not a substance of some

kind but only an accident, being a shadow cast by heaven and earth.

This is why it vanishes when the light appears. Light, on the other

hand, is and subsists as a substance; after setting, it rises, and after

departing, it returns. In other words, just as our body is a substance,

but the shadow created by the body is an accident, not a substance,

so heaven and earth, the largest bodies, are substances of different

kinds, but the shadow caused by them in the absence of light is

called “darkness,” and once the light enters, the darkness disappears.

() Other considerations lead to the same conclusion. A house

with no windows is full of darkness, but when a lamp is brought in,

it lights up—not that darkness has moved off elsewhere, for, being

insubstantial, it does not subsist. Rather, it is completely dissolved

with the coming of the light. After all, a shadow is caused by theroof, the floor, and the walls, and is dissipated by the beams of light.

We see this occurring every day. When the light recedes, the shadow

cast by heaven and earth brings darkness, and when the light rises

again, the darkness is dissipated.

Question



Ouj toiv nun ajgev nhto" oujsiva to; skovto", ou[te mh; n genhthv ti"

uJpovstasi", ajllæ ejk tw' n genhtw' n sunistamev nh, crh'si"

aj nagkaiva kai; tou' Qeou' th; n sofivan khruvttousa. aujtivka gou' n oJ

profhvth" to; n tw' n o{lwn Qeo; n kai; ej nteu'qen uJmnei': oJ poihvsa",gavr fhsi, fw' " kai; kataskeuavsa" skovto".c aJrmodivw" de; a[gan

eJkavtera tevqeiken: to; me; n poihvsa" ejpi; tou' fwtov", to; de;

kataskeuavsa" ejpi; tou' skovtou": sumbebhko;" gavr ejsti,

sunistavmenon kai; dialuovmenon. kai; oiJ trismakavrioi de; pai'de",

pa'san th; n ktivsin eij" uJmnw/divan kalevsante", th' / hJmevra/ th; n

nuvkta sunevzeuxan kai; fwti; to; skovto" sunhvrmosan,d ejpeidh;

tai'" touvtwn diadocai'" kai; oJ crov no" metrei'tai, kai; oJ tw' naj nqrwvpwn sunivstatai bivo".

Poi'on pneu' ma.......ejpefev reto ejpavnw tou' u{dato" ; a

Tisi; dokei' to; panavgion pneu'ma zwogonou' n tw' n uJdavtwn th; n

fuvsin kai; prodiagrav fon th; n tou' baptivsmato" cavrin.

ajlhqevsteron mev ntoi ejkei' non oi\mai to; n lovgon o{ti pneu' ma

ej ntau'qa to; n aj evra kalei'. eijpw; n ga;r o{ti to; n oujrano; n kai; th; n

gh' n ejpoiv hse kai; tw' n uJdavtwn dia; th'" ajbuvssou mnhsqeiv",

aj nagkaivw" kai; tou' aj evro" ejmnhvsqh, ejk th'" tou' u{dato"

ejpifaneiva" mev cri tou' oujranou' dihvkonto": aj evro" ga;r fuvsi" to;

toi'" kavtw keimev noi" ejpifevresqai swvmasi. mavla de; aJrmodivw"

to; ejpefev reto kai; oujk ejpevkeito ei[rhke: to; ga;r ejpefev reto th; nkinhtikh; n tou' aj evro" oujsivan paredhvlou.

Eij dev ti" tou'ton ouj prosiv etai to; n lovgon, ejpeidh;

gevgraptai, pneu' ma Qeou' ejpefev reto ejpavnw tou' u{dato",

ajkousavtw tou' makarivou Dabi;d levgonto" peri; tou' Qeou' tw' n


c. Is .mmd. Dn .f. (LXX)

a, , , C, [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .mm



Darkness, then, is neither an uncreated nor a created substance.

Caused by created things, it is necessary and useful and proclaims

God’s wisdom. Indeed, the prophet regards this as yet another rea-

son to praise the God of the universe: “I am he who created lightand caused darkness.”c He has mentioned each in a very appropriate

way: “created” in the case of the light and “caused” in the case of the

darkness, which is an accident that is brought about and dissipated.

The three blessed young men also, in summoning creation to sing

praise, linked night to day and joined the darkness to the light,d for

in their mutual succession they allow the measurement of time and

provide the composite elements of human life.

Which spirit “moved over the water”?a

Some commentators believe it was the most Holy Spirit vivifying

the nature of the waters and foreshadowing the grace of baptism.

But I think it more likely that by “spirit” he is here referring to the

air. After declaring that God made heaven and earth and mention-

ing the waters by reference to “the deep,” he logically goes on to

mention as well the air, which extends from the water’s surface to

heaven, for air naturally moves over bodies lying under it.1 Now, it

was very apposite for him to say “moved over” and not “lying on”:

“moved” implying the kinetic character of the air.

Should you reject this view because Scripture says, “A spirit of

God moved over the water,” listen to blessed David speaking of the

Question

. Guinot lists (pp. f.) earlier allegorical interpretations of Gn . that equat-ed the Spirit moving over the waters with the Holy Spirit. Diodore, Theodoret’smodel throughout the Quaest. in oct., had been prepared to admit (Deconinck,

frag. ) that the spirit might be either the Holy Spirit or a wind. Given this andother differences between the interpretations of Theodoret and Diodore, Guinotsuggests that our commentator may here have drawn from the lost work of



o{lwn, pneuvsei to; pneu' ma aujtou' , kai; rJuhvsetai u{data.b o{ti de;

to; n a[ nemon ou{tw" ejkavlese dh'lov n ejsti ka] n mh; levgw: Eu[rou ga;r

h] Novtou pnevonto", to; pephgo;" u{dwr dialuv esqai pev fuken.

Tiv ni levgei oJ Qeov", genhqhvtw fw' ",a kai; genhqhvtw sterevwma;b

Oujk a[llw/ tini; keleuv ei dhmiourgei' n, ajlla; ta; mh; o[ nta kalei'. ej ntau'qa de; provstagma to; bouvlhma: pavnta, gavr fhsin, o{sa

hjqevlhsen oJ Qeov", ejpoivhsen.c eij de; kai; fwnh' / tini dhmiourgw' n

ej crhvsato, dh'lon wJ", ouj tw' n aj yuv cwn e{ neka stoiceivwn, ajlla;

tw' n ajoravtwn cavrin dunavmewn, i{ na gnw'sin wJ", aujtou'

keleuvonto", ta; mh; o[ nta sunivstatai.

Dia; tiv tevqeiken oJ suggrafeu;" to; ei\ den oJ Qeo;" ..... o{ti

kalovn ;a

{Ina peivsh/ tou;" aj carivstou" mh; yevgein a{per hJ qeiva yh' fo"

oj nomavzei kalav.


b. Ps .

a , , , C , [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .mmb. Gn .mmc.Ps .

a, , , C, [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .



God of the universe: “He will breathe his spirit, and waters will

flow.”b The fact that this constitutes a reference to the wind is obvi-

ous and needs no comment of mine. In the natural course of events,

frozen water melts when the east or south wind blows.

To whom does God say, “Let there be light”a and “Let there be a

firmament”?b

He was not commanding anyone else to create but summoningthings not in existence, his will constituting a command. Scripture

says, “God made everything he wished.”c If, however, he also used

speech in the act of creation, it was clearly not for the benefit of the

lifeless elements but for the invisible powers, so that they might

learn that, at his bidding, the non-existent comes into existence.

Why did the historian set down the statement: “God saw that it

was good”?a

To persuade ungrateful people not to find fault with what God

esteems good.1

Question

Theodore of Mopsuestia, who might also have disputed the assertion that Gn .contains a prefiguration of baptism. No extant patristic commentary of this versemakes explicit reference to baptism.

. Here and later (e.g., Q. ), Theodoret strangely passes up the opportunity tocombat dualistic tendencies by highlighting the biblical author’s insistence on thegoodness of creation.



Ei |" oujranov", h] duvo eijsiv n;||

() |Th'" qeiva" didaskouvsh" grafh'" wJ" ejn aj rch' / ejpoivhsen oJ

Qeo;" to;n ouj rano;n kai; th;n gh' n a ei\ta, meta; th; n tou' fwto;"

dhmiourgivan, ej n th' / deutevra/ legouvsh" hJmevra/ to; sterevwma

gegenh'sqai,|| pollh; n hJ ejrwvthsi" tw' n punqanomev nwn ejmfaiv nei

th; n a[ noian. e[dei ga;r kai; ejk tou' kairou' kai; mev ntoi kai; ejk tou'

trovpou th'" dhmiourgiva" to; diav foron gnw' nai: oJ me; n ga;r pro;

tou' fwtov", oJ de; meta; to; fw'": kai; oJ me; n oujk e[k tino": oJ de; ejx uJdavtwn: genhqhvtw, gavr fhsi, sterevwma ejn mevsw/ tou' u{dato"

kai; e[stw diacwrivzon ajna; mevson u{dato" kai; u{dato".b ei\ta

eijpw; n wJ" oJ lovgo" e[rgon ejgev neto: tou'to ga;r dhloi` to; kai;

ejgevneto ou{tw": didavskei kai; pw'" ejgev neto: ejpoivhse, gavr

fhsin, oJ Qeo;" to; sterevwma, kai; diecwv risen oJ Qeo;" ajna; mevson

tou' u{dato" o{ h\ n uJpokavtw tou' sterewv mato" kai; ajna; mevson tou'

u{dato" tou' ejpavnw tou' sterewv mato", kai; ejkavlesen oJ Qeo;" to;sterevwma ouj ranovn.c

J O de; provtero" oujrano;" oujk ejklhvqh sterevwma, ajllæ ouj rano;"

ejx ajrch'" wj nomavsqh: ou |to" ga;r ejx aujtou' tou' pravgmato" th; n

proshgorivan ejdevxato. ejpeidh; ga;r ejk th'" rJowvdou" tw' n uJdavtwn

oujsiva" sunevsth, kai; hJ rJ uth; fuvsi" steganwtavth gevgone kai;

sterevmnio", proshgoreuvqh sterevwma. ei\ta wJ" a[ nwqen

ejpikeivmeno" kai; tou' protevrou oujranou' th; n creivan hJmi' nplhrw' n, ouj rano;" proswnomavsqh. dich' de; diei'le tw' n uJdavtwn

th; n fuvsin oJ tw' n o{lwn Qeov", kai; ta; me; n a[ nwqen | ejpitevqeike tw' /

sterewvmati, ta; de; kavtw katalevloipen i{ na ta; me; n a[ nwqen

ejpikeivmena th' / te uJgrovthti kai; yucrovthti mh; sugcwrh' / tw' /

puri; tw' n fwsthvrwn lwba'sqai to; sterevwma, ta; de; kavtw


|26b

a , , , (inc.) , , (+ a) b(inc.) [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .mmb. Gn .mmc. Gn .f.mm

||10

|10a

||3



Is there one heaven or two?

() Since holy Scripture teaches, “In the beginning God made

heaven and earth,”a and then says that the firmament was made on

the second day after the creation of light, the question betrays the

foolishness of those who raise it. After all, from both the time and,

indeed, the manner of creation one should grasp the difference. One

heaven was created before the light, the other after; one from noth-

ing else, the other from water. Scripture says, “Let a firmament bemade in the midst of the water, and let it divide water from water.”b

Then, after saying that the word took effect, which is the meaning

of, “And so it was,” he conveys also how it came to be: “God made

the firmament, and God separated the water that was under the fir-

mament from the water that was above the firmament. And God

called the firmament heaven.”c

Now, from the very beginning, the first heaven was not called

“firmament,” but “heaven.” The second got its name from the act of

creation itself. Since it was composed of the fluid substance of the

waters, and this liquid nature became quite firm and dense, it was

called “firmament.” Then, positioned on high, and meeting our

need for the first heaven, it was given also the name “heaven.” TheGod of the universe made a twofold division in the nature of the

waters: some he placed above the firmament, and some he left be-

low, the purpose being that what was placed above with its moisture

and coolness would not permit the firmament to be damaged by the

fire of the luminous bodies, while what remained below would sus-

Question



memenhkovta diatrev fh/ toi'" ajtmoi'" to; n aj evra diauainovmenon kai;

xhrainovmenon uJpo; tou' a[ nwqen ejpikeimev nou purov".

() Toigarou' n kai; oJ tw' / deutevrw/ diapistw' n oujranw' / e[xw

baiv nei th'" eujqeiva" oJdou', kai; oJ pleivou" peirwvmeno" ajriqmei' nmuvqoi" e{petai, th'" tou' qeivou pneuvmato" didaskaliva"

katafronw' n. plhquntikw'" de; hJ qeiva grafh; tou;" oujranou;"

oj nomavzei, levgousa oiJ ouj ranoi; tw' n ouj ranw' n,d ejpeidh; tw' n

eJbraivwn hJ glw'tta ou[te to; n oujrano; n ou[te to; u{dwr oi\den eJ nikw'"

oj nomavsai. eu{roi dæ a[ n ti" toiau'ta polla; kai; para; th' / eJllavdi

fwnh' /: ∆Aqhvnan ga;r th; n povlin oujdei;" eJ nikw'" oj nomavzei, ajllæ

∆Aqhvna" plhquntikw'", kai; Delfw' n pavlin th; n povlin oujdei;" Delfovn, ajlla; Delfou;" plhquntikw'". ouj toiv nun wJ" pollw' n

o[ ntwn oujranw' n, ouj ranou;" ouj ranw' n hJ qeiva ei\pe grafhv, ajlla; to;

ijdivwma fulavxasa th'" eJbraiv >do" fwnh'", ejpei; ej n eJtevrw/ yalmw' /

safevsteron hJma'" tou'to didavskousa kai; paralipou'sa to; th'"

glwvtth" ejkeiv nh" ijdivwma, ou{tw" e[ fh: oJ ouj rano;" tou' ouj ranou' tw' /

Kurivw/,e wJ" ei\ nai dh'lon o{ti, kaqavper ou |to" oJ oujrano;" hJmi' n

ejstin o[rofo", hJ de; gh' e[dafo", ou{tw" oJ oJrwvmeno" oujrano;"

o[rofon e[ cei to; n uJperkeivmenon oujranov n.

Tiv dhv pote mivan eijpw; n th; n tw' n uJdavtwn sunagwghvn, polla;"

meta; tau'ta dhloi'; sunhv cqh, gavr fhsi, to; u{dwr to; uJpokavtw

tou' ouj ranou' eij" ta;" sunagwga;" aujtw' n.a

Miva mev n ejsti tw' n uJdavtwn sunagwghv: ta; pelavgh ga;r

ajllhvloi" sunhvrmostai: ta; me; n kavtwqen diav tinwn uJpogeivwn


d. Ps .mme. Ps .

a, , , C, a b [ ] = mss.

a. Gn . (LXX)



tain with its mist the air parched and dried by the fire overhead.

() Consequently, those who refuse to accept the existence of the

second heaven stray from the right path, while those who venture toenumerate more follow mythological fables and spurn the teaching

of the Holy Spirit. Now, holy Scripture does speak in the plural of

“the heavens”: “The heavens of the heavens.”d This is because the

Hebrew language cannot speak in the singular of heaven or water.

Greek provides many similar examples: no one calls the city “Athen”

in the singular, but “Athens” in the plural; similarly, no one calls the

city of the Delphians “Delphos,” but “Delphi” in the plural. 1

Notthat holy Scripture said “heavens of the heavens” as if there were

many; it only observes the idiom of the Hebrew language. It teaches

us this more clearly in another psalm, where, laying aside the idiom

of that language, it declares: “The heaven of the heaven is the

Lord’s.”e Thus we deduce that, just as this heaven is our roof, and the

earth our floor, so that higher heaven provides the roof for the heav-

en we can see. 2

Why, after mentioning one gathering together of the waters, does

he later indicate many by saying,“The water under heaven was gath-

ered together in its gatherings”?a

There is one gathering of waters, since the oceans mingle with

Question

. Theodoret had already dealt with this issue in his commentary on Ps .;there, as here, he explains the plural form of the Hebrew term for “heaven” andcites the parallel example of plural forms of Greek place names; cf. Chrys., hom. .

in Gen (on Gn .).

. Similarly, in his commentary on Ps . (. LXX = . MT) Theodo-ret remarks: “[The Lord] dwells in heaven, not this visible one, but the one aboveit, which provides the roof for that lower heaven, which provides a roof for us.”



povrwn, ta; de; kai; katæ aujth; n th; n ejpifav neian. plhquntikw'" de;

pavlin ta;" sunagwga;" wj novmasen, ejpeidh; a[llo me; n to; ∆Indiko; n

pevlago", a[llo de; to; Pontikov n, kai; to; Turrhniko; n e{teron, kai;

a[llh me; n hJ Propontiv", a[llo" de; oJ ÔEllhvsponto", kai; oJAijgai'o" e{tero", kai; a[llo" pavlin oJ ∆Iwv nio" kovlpo". e[xwqen de;

pavlin ejpivkeitai to; mevgiston pevlago", o{ tine" me; n

∆Atlantikovn, tine;" de; ∆Wkeanovn, oj nomavzousi. touvtou cavrin, wJ"

me; n sunhmmev nhn sunagwgh;n mivan wj novmasen, wJ" de; dih/rhmev na",

sunagwgav".

Tiv dhv pote ta;" oujk ejdwdivmou" botav na" blasth'sai

prosevtaxen oJ Qeov";a

Polla; tw' n ajlovgwn zwv /wn ta; gev nh: ta; me; n qhriva, ta; de;

kthvnh prosagoreuovmena, kai; ta; me; n eJ rpetav, ta; de; peteinav.

touvtoi" a{pasi trofh; n prohutrevpisen oJ Qeo;" kai; tau'ta de;

th'" tw' n aj nqrwvpwn e{ neka pepoiv hke creiva". aujtivka gou' n kai; diæ

hJma'" aujtav fhsi diatrev fesqai: tw' / ejxanatevllonti, gavr fhsi,

cov rton toi' " kthvnesi kai; clovhn th' / douleiva/ tw' n ajnqrwvpwn.b to;

toiv nun touvtw/ a[ crhston ejkeiv nw/ crhvsimon, kai; ta; toi'"

aj nqrwvpoi" oujk aj nagkai'a toi'" diæ aujtou' gegenhmev noi" aJrmovdia.

Pro;" de; touvtoi" proorw' n oJ Qeo;" o{ti kai; pavqh

prosgenhvsetai toi'" aj nqrwvpoi", a{te dh; dia; th; n aJmartivan

dexamev noi" tou' qanavtou to; n o{ron, ouj mov non ejdwdivmou", ajlla;kai; ajlexikavkou" tw' n paqhmavtwn botav na" blasth'sai th' / gh' /

prosevtaxe. kai; tou'to mavqoi ti" a] n |ajkribevsteron para; tw' n

th; n ijatrikh; n hjskhmev nwn tev cnhn, o{ti kai; ta; dokou' nta ei\ nai


|30

a, , (inc.), C, a b [ ] * = mss.

a. Gn .f.mmb. Ps .



one another: some below the surface through subterranean chan-

nels, and others right on the surface. But he also spoke of “gather-

ings” in the plural, since the Indian Sea differs from the Black Sea,

and the Adriatic. Likewise, the Propontis is different from the Helle-spont, which is different from the Aegean, which is different from

the Ionian. Furthermore, the largest sea, which some people call the

“Atlantic,” others the “Ocean,” lies on the rim of the world. For this

reason, he used the phrase “one gathering” for the connected body,

and “gatherings” for the separated bodies.1

Why did God ordain the growth of inedible plants?1a

There are many kinds of irrational animals divided into the cate-

gories of “wild beasts,” “cattle,” “the reptiles,” and “the birds.” God

made provision for the nourishment of all of these and created them

to meet the needs of human beings. Indeed, Scripture says that they

also receive nourishment for our sake: “He makes grass grow for the

cattle, and crops for the service of man.”2b So what is useless to the

latter is useful for the former, and what is unnecessary for human

beings fits the needs of creatures that were made for their use.

In addition, God foresaw the development of disease in the hu-

man race which, as a result of its sins, was to receive the sentence of

death. So he ordered the earth to produce not only edible plants butalso those that would repel sickness. Those versed in medical science

could give you more detailed information about plants that, while

Question

. Antiochene congregations/readers, with their attention to detail (ajkrivbeia),require an explanation of such apparent discrepancies. Theodoret, here, as else-where (cf. Qq. , on Jgs), delights in providing geographical information.

. V. Gn .f., which do not actually speak of inedible plants.. In his comment on Ps . Theodoret declares: “Cattle also enjoy this prov-idence because of their usefulness to man.”



dhlhthvria paqw' n ejstin ijathvria: kerannuvmena ga;r eJtevrai"

botav nai", ajlexivkaka giv netai kai; uJgeiva" parektikav.

Tw' n fwsthvrwn dhmiourghqev ntwn, tiv gevgone to; provteron

fw'";a

J O despovth" Qeo;" kai; ejk mh; o[ ntwn poiei' kai; ejx o[ ntwn

dhmiourgei': to; n me; n ga;r provteron oujrano; n ejk mh; o[ ntwn

ejdhmiouvrghse, to; n|| de; deuvteron ejx uJdavtwn ejpoiv hsen.b

ou{twth; n gh' n mh; ou\san parhvgagen, ta; gev nh de; tw' n dev ndrwn kai;

tw' n spermavtwn aujth' / blasth'sai prosevtaxen.c kai; to; fw'"

toiv nun ejdhmiouvrghsen wJ" hjqevlhsen. w{sper de; tw' / sterewvmati

diei'le tw' n uJdavtwn th; n fuvsin, kai; ta; me; n ejpitevqeiken a[ nwqen,

ta; de; kavtw katalevloipen, ou{tw" ejkei' no to; fw'" dielw; n wJ"

hjqevlhsen, tou;" fwsth'ra" tou;" megavlou" kai; tou;" mikrou;"

kateskeuvasen.d

Tiv ejsti to; eij" shmei' a, kai; eij" kairouv", kai; eij" ejniautouv",

kai; eij" hJ mev ra" ; a

J O h{lio", aj nivscwn me; n kai; duovmeno", ta;" hJmevra" poiei', eij"

de; ta; novtia kai; ta; bovreia mevrh diatrev cwn, to; n ej niauvsionkuvklon ajpotelei'. ou |to" kai; ta;" tropa;" ejrgavzetai, a}" kairou;"

wj novmasen hJ qeiva grafhv: ajpo; ga;r tou' ijshmerinou' tovpou pro;"

ta; bovreia metabaiv nwn, to; e[ar poiei': ei\ta ejkei'qen ejpaniw; n


||26b

a, , B, C, a b(inc.) [ ] = mss.

a. Gn ., mmb. Gn ., mmc. Gn .–mmd. Gn .,

a, , B, (inc.) , (inc.) , a(+ ) [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .



seeming harmful, actually cure disease. When mixed with others,

they have curative properties and promote good health.

What happened to the original light when the lights of heaven

were created?a

The Lord God creates from what does not yet exist and also fash-

ions from what already exists. He created the first heaven from what

did not exist and made the second from the waters.b

Likewise, heproduced the earth when it did not exist and ordered it to grow the

different sorts of trees and seeds.c And so he created the light as he

wished. Then, as he had divided the waters with the firmament and

put some above and left others below, he divided that light as he

wished in the fashioning of the greater and the lesser lights. d

What is the meaning of the verse “For signs, and for times, for

years, and for days”?a

In its rising and setting the sun makes the days and in covering

its course to the south and the north completes the cycle of the year.It also produces the solstices, which holy Scripture calls “times.”

Crossing from the equator to the north, it causes the spring. Then,

Question



mev cri touvtwn tw' n o{rwn, th; n qerinh; n|| kataskeuavzei trophv n:

proi>ov nto" de; aujtou' ej nteu'qen ejpi; ta; novtia, to; metovpwron

giv netai: ejpaniw; n de; au\qi", to; n ceimw' na poiei'. ejk de; tou'

drovmou th'" selhv nh" to; n tw' n mhnw' n manqav nomen ajriqmov n: dia;triavkonta ga;r hJmerw n, e}x wJrw' n deousw' n, to; n oijkei'on drovmon

plhroi'. ou | dh; cavrin to; n tw' n tosouvtwn hJmerw' n ajriqmo; n|| mh' na

prosagoreuvomen, ejpeidh; kai; th; n selhv nhn oj nomavzousi mhvnhn.

To; de; eij" shmei' a ouj kata; tou;" aj nohvtou" noou'men hJmei'":

th; n ga;r th'" geneqlialogiva" mataiologivan oujde; Puqagovra",

oujde; Swkravth", oujde; Plavtwn, oujde; oiJ stwi>koi; prosedevxanto.

eij de; oiJ toi'" muvqoi" ej nteqrammev noi tou'de tou' muvqou to;dussebe;" ejbdeluvxanto, tiv" a] n toi'" qeivoi" pisteuvwn lovgoi"

tw' n, ouj dussebw' n mov non, ajlla; kai; livan aj nohvtwn aj navscoito

lovgwn; shmei' a toiv nun hJ qeiva kalei' grafh; to; eijdev nai spovrou

kairov n, tou' futeu'sai, tou' kaqavrai, tou' xuvla temei' n eij"

nauphgivan kai; oijkodomivan ejpithvdeia. ej nteu'qen kai; oiJ nautiliva/

crwvmenoi memaqhvkasi povte me; n|| |ajpa'rai povte de; kaqormivsai

proshvkei to; skav fo", kai; povte me; n petavsai dei' to; iJstivon

povte de; kaqelei' n: hJ pei'ra ga;r aujtou;" ejxepaivdeuse ta;" tw' n

ajstevrwn ejpitolav" te kai; duvsei". pollavki" de; kai; hJmei'"

komhvthn, h] pwgwnivthn, h] dokivdhn ijdov nte", h] polemivwn e[gnwmen

prosbolhv n, h] ajkrivdo" ejmbolhv n, h] kthnw' n h] aj nqrwvpwn fqorav n.

tau'ta toiv nun shmei' a ejkavlesen, oujk ejkei' na ta; pavsh" aj noiva"

kai; dussebeiva" mestav.

Tiv dhv pote ta; me; n futa;a pro; tw' n fwsthvrwnb ejpoiv hse, ta;

de; zw' /a meta; touvtou";c


||3

||51

||10a |10

a, , B, C –51, [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .f.mmb. Gn .f.mmc. Gn .–



proceeding thence to these regions, it produces the summer solstice.

Then as it proceeds to the south, autumn begins, and, as it returns

to its point of departure, it causes the winter. We learn the number

of the months from the course of the moon. It completes its coursein twenty-nine days and eighteen hours. Hence, we give the name

“month” to this number of days, since the moon is also called mhv nh(mene).1

In our interpretation of the phrase “for signs,” we do not follow

the fools, whose idle astrological notions found no acceptance with

Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, or the Stoics. Now, if those raised on

mythological fables abhorred this irreligious myth, what believer inthe divine word could tolerate ideas that are not only irreligious but

downright foolish? “Signs,” then, is the term which holy Scripture

uses for indications of the time for sowing, planting, winnowing,

and cutting down trees for building ships and houses. From these,

sailors have learned when to lift and when to cast anchor, when to

unfurl and furl the sail, for experience has taught them the risings

and settings of the stars. Furthermore, the observance of a comet,

shooting star, or meteor has often informed us of an enemy attack,

an invasion of locusts, or a plague on cattle or people. So this was

the kind of “signs” meant by Scripture, not those figments of rank

folly and irreligion.2

Why did God create the plants before,a and the animals after,c the

heavenly lights?b

Question

. That is, the moon (selhv nh) is also called mhv nh, a word similar in form and

sound to mhv n, the word for “month.”. Theodoret recognizes that “signs” is the odd item in the series “signs, sea-

sons, days, and years.” His interpretation closely resembles that of von Rad (on



j Ofqalmou;" e[ cei ta; zw' /a kai; tou' fwto;" th; n uJperbolh; n oujk

a] n h[ negke. tou'to dev, dianemhqe; n eij" tou;" mikrou;" kai;

megavlou" fwsth'ra", suvmmetron th' / o[ yei tw' n zwv /wn aj fiv hsin

ai[glhn. tw' n de; futw' n hJ fuvsi" aijsqhvsew" a[moiro".

Tiv no" cavrin ta; me; n futa; oujk hujlovghse,a toi'" de; zwv /oi" e[ fh,

aujxavnesqe, kai; ta; eJxh'";b

Tw' n leimwv nwn, kai; tw' n lhiv >wn, kai; tw' n pantodapw' n botanw' n,kai; dev ndrwn, eujqu;" ejqelhvsa", th; n gh' n ejplhvrwsen a{pasan, ta;

dev ge a[loga zw' /a aj na; duvo parhvgagen. eijkovtw" toiv nun aujtoi'"

th; n eujlogivan proshv negken i{ na, dia; th'" polugoniva", ta; me; n

pelavgh, kai; livmna", kai; potamouv", ta; de; to; n aj evra, ta; de;

plhrwvsh/ th; n gh' n.

Dia; tiv ta; qhriva kai; ta; eJrpeta; pepoiv hken oJ Qeov";a

() Dei'tai ta; paidiva kai; mormolukeivwn, kai; iJmav ntwn, kai;

rJavbdwn: kai; toi'" me; n aujta; dedittovmeqa, toi'" de; kai;

paideuvomen: eJkavtera de; drw'men, pa'san aujtoi'" eujtaxivan

pragmateuovmenoi. ejpeidh; toiv nun prohv /dei hJma'" oJ despovth"

Qeo;" eij" rJaqumivan ejkkliv nonta", oi |on iJmav nta" tina;" kai;


a, , B, C –51, [ ] = mss.

l. kai; dev ndrwn a, c, , [ ], Sir. Sch. : kaiv te dev ndrwn F.M. For therarity and restricted usage of the collocation kaiv te (epicism), v. Denniston,pp. f. The TLG cites no other examples of kaiv te in the works of Thdt.

a. Gn .mmb. Gn .

a(inc.),

, B, c,

(inc.)

,

b(inc.) [

]

(inc.) =

mss.

a. Gn .f.mm



Animals have eyes and could not have tolerated the excessively

bright light. But when this was apportioned among the lesser and

the greater lights, it emitted a brightness commensurate with the vi-

sion of the animals. Plants, in contrast, have no senses.

Why did he confer no blessing on the plantsa yet say to the living

beings, “Increase,” and so on?b

He filled the whole earth with meadows, crops, and all kinds of plants and trees in a single act of will but brought forth the irra-

tional animals in pairs. Accordingly, he bestowed a blessing on

them, so that through their numerous offspring some might fill the

oceans, lakes, and rivers, others the air, and others the land.

Why did God make the wild beasts and the reptiles?a

() Children require bogey-men, straps, and sticks. We use the

former to frighten, the latter to chastise, them, and in each case our

goal is to instill orderly behavior. Now, foreseeing our inclination to

indifference, the Lord God made provision for wild beasts so he

could use them like straps and bogey-men to frighten us, draw us to

Question

.–): “‘Signs’ in Gn . are perhaps the sights in the heavenly vault which werenot normal, as eclipses of the sun; in any case they were fixed astral points for reg-ulating cult and work.”



mormolukei'a prokateskeuvase ta; qhriva i{ na, touvtoi" hJma'"

dedittovmeno", pro;" eJauto; n e{lkh/ kai; kalei' n eij" summacivan

paraskeuavzh/. ajllæ w{sper oiJ tevleioi kai; tw' n mormolukeivwn kai;

iJmav ntwn katafronou'sin, ou{tw" oiJ th'" ajreth'" trov fimoi ta;"tw' n qhrivwn ouj deimaiv nousi prosbolav". kai; ga;r tw' / ∆Ada;m pro;

th'" aJmartiva" paresthvkei ta; qhriva, th; n douleivan

oJmologou' nta,b kai; tw' / Nw' e pavlin eij" th; n kibwto; n eijsiov nti

divkhn probavtwn kai; levwn hjko||louvqei, kai; pavrdali", kai; tw' n

eJrpetw' n ta; pikrovtata,c kai; tw' / Danih;l paresthvkeisan oiJ

levonte", ojregovmenoi me; n trofh'", pelavsai de; mh; tolmw' nte":d

tou;" ga;r qeoeidei'" th'" qeiva" eijkov no" eJwvrwn ej n aujtw' / carakth'ra". ou{tw" e[ ci" th' / tou' ajpostovlou ceiri; tou;" ojdov nta"

ejmbalou'sa kai; th'" aJmartiva" to; cau' non kai; calaro; n ouj c

euJrou'sa, ajpephvdhse parautivka kai; kata; th'" |pura'" h{lato

w{sper divka" eJauth; n eijsprattomev nh, o{ti tw' / mhdamovqen

proshvkonti prosevbale swvmati.e hJmei'" de; ta; qhriva dedoivkamen,

ejpeidh; th'" ajreth'" th; n politeivan oujk e[ comen. kai; ou{tw de;

rJaqumouv ntwn khdovmeno", oJ Qeo;" tou;" ejrhmotevrou" ejkeiv noi"

ajpeklhvrwse tovpou" kai; to; n th'" nukto;" aujtoi'" kairo; n

ajpev neimen eij" diatrofhv n: ejn aujth' /, gavr fhsi, dieleuvsetai

pavnta ta; qhriva tou' drumou' :f toi'" eJrpetoi'" de; tou;" ej n th' / gh' /

devdwke chramou;" o{pw", ej n ejkeiv noi" kruptovmena, mh; lumaiv nwsi

tw' n aj nqrwvpwn to; gev no". i{ na de; mhv, pantavpasin ajlwvbhtoi

diamev nonte", katafronw'men aujtw' n wJ" blavptein h{kista

dunamev nwn, e[stin o{te sugcwrei' duvo tina;" h] trei'" ejk pollw' n

muriavdwn oJ sofw'" ta; kaqæ hJma'" prutaneuvwn h] uJpo; skorpivwnkentei'sqai h] uJpo; o[ fewn davknesqai i{ næ hJmei'", wJ" dediovte" mhv

ti paraplhvsion pavqoimen, eij" ejpikourivan kalw'men to; n

pepoihkovta Qeo; n kai; uJpo; th'" panalkou'" ejkeiv nh" promhqeiva"

frourei'sqai parakalw'men. a[llw" te oujde; ej n toi'" a[lloi" hJmi' n

a[ crhsta ta; qhriva: polla; ga;r kai; ejk touvtwn ajlexivkaka ijatrw' n

pai'de" kataskeuavzousi favrmaka.


||37

|51

b. Gn .f.mmc. Gn .–mmd. Dn .mme. Acts .–mmf. Ps .



himself, and cause us to invoke his assistance.1 But as adults feel

scorn for bogey-men and straps, so Virtue’s pupils have no fear of

attack by wild beasts. Indeed, in acknowledgment of their sub-

servient state, the wild animals waited on Adam before his sin.b

Likewise, when Noah was boarding the ark, the lion, the leopard,

and the most vicious of the reptiles followed him like sheep.c Lions

attended on Daniel; though lunging for food, they dared not get too

close,d since they recognized in him the godly stamp of the divine

image. Though a viper fixed its fangs in the apostle’s hand, not find-

ing the loose and spongy consistency of sin, it immediately leapt

away and threw itself into the fire as though punishing itself for as-saulting a body it had no right to attack.e In contrast, our fear of the

wild beasts is due to our failure to live virtuous lives. In his care for

indifferent people, God set the wild beasts in deserted places and al-

lotted them the night for foraging. Scripture says, “At night all the

wild beasts of the forest will travel about.”f He gave the reptiles hol-

lows so they would hide away and not harm the human race. But to

prevent us from going on free from injury and coming to scorn the

creeping things as though they had no power to cause harm, every

once in a while God, in his wise governance of our affairs, allows

two or three people out of countless thousands to be stung by scor-

pions or bitten by snakes so we will dread suffering something simi-

lar, call on God the Creator for assistance, and entreat the protection

of his all-powerful providence. Furthermore, the wild beasts are

very useful in other ways as well, for they are the source of materials

which the medical profession uses to prepare many a remedy against disease.2

Question

. Chrysostom’s comment on Gn .f. (hom. . in Gen.) confirms that the cre-

ation of wild animals and reptiles seemed to some to provide grounds for ques-tioning God’s goodness.. Chrysostom (ib.) had also made this point.



() Mhdei;" toiv nun, aujto; kaqæ eJauto; to; qhrivon ejxetavzwn,

ejpimemfevsqw tw' / poihth' / ajlla; th; n creivan ejpizhteivtw. ejpei; kai;

to; sw'ma to; aj nqrwvpinon pollh; n e[ cei kai; w{ran, kai; aJrmonivan,

kai; tw' n morivwn th; n creivan: ajllæ e[ cei kai; kovruzan, kai;ptuv elon, kai; duswvdh kovpron ejkkrinomev nhn. ajllæ oujdei;" eu\

fronw' n ajpo; touvtwn diabavllei to; zw' /on: div ca ga;r touvtwn

biw' nai tw' n ajdunavtwn. dia; ga;r touvtwn ajrdeuovmenon tevqhlen:

crhv /zei ga;r kai; flevgmato", kai; ai{mato", kai; colh'" eJkatevra".

ajllæ w{sper dia; touvtwn sunevsthken, ou{tw" kai; dia; touvtwn

diovllutai: eJ no;" ga;r tw' n eijrhmev nwn h] pleonasmo;" h] e[ ndeia

dialuv ei to; zw' /on. ou{tw pavlin ei[ ti" mivan tw' n daktuvlwn ejktevmh/skutalivda, o[ yetai pantelw'" aujth; n a[ crhston, ajlla; sunhmmev nh

pleivsthn parev cei tw' /|| swvmati creivan.

Ou{tw toiv nun kai; hJma'" proshvkei poiei' n, mh; aujto; kaqæ eJauto;

e{kaston mevro" ejxetavzein th'" ktivsew", ajlla; zhtei' n eij tw' /

panti; crhvsimon. ejpei; kai; to; pu'r kaustikov n ejsti kaiv, ouj

mov non swvmata diafqeivrei, ajlla; kai; oi[kou" ejmpivprhsi, kai;

ploi'a, kai; lhvi>a: ajllæ o{mw" e{ n ejsti tw' n tessavrwn stoiceivwn

diæ w | n ta; pav nta sunhvrmostai, kai; div ca touvtou th; n qnhth; n

fuvsin diabiw' nai tw' n ajdunavtwn. kai; u{dwr wJsauvtw" ejpikluvzei

th; n gh' n, oijkiva" kataluv ei, pampovllou" tw' n nautillomev nwn

diovllusi, lumaiv netai de; kai; tou;" ajkaivrw" kai; ajmevtrw" piv nein

aj necomev nou". ajllæ oujdeiv", mh; komidh' / parapaivwn, ojlevqrion to;

u{dwr wj novmase: tou'to ga;r kai; th; n gh' n a[rdei kai; ta; futa;

trev fei, kai; ta; a[loga zw' /a, kai; tw' n aj nqrwvpwn th; n fuvsin. ou{tw

toiv nun kai; tw' n a[llwn e{kaston ejxetavzomen, mh; aujto; kaqæ eJauto;basanivzonte" ei[ te lumantikov n ejstin ei[ te wj fevlimon, ajllæ eij

tw' / koinw' / suntelei' tina creivan.

Kai; qhriva ga;r aijdei'tai me; n to; n a[ nqrwpon dia; th; n ejx ajrch'"

doqei'san aujtw' / katæ aujtw' n ejxousivan: wJ" parabe||bhkovto" de;

to; n qei'on novmon e[stin o{te katafronei'. kai; ga;r oiJ ponhroi;

dou'loi diaptuv ein eijwvqasi tou;" ijquv nein aujtou;" para; tw' n


||26b

l. ejxetavzein a, B –14 , , , Sir. : ejxetavzei Sch. F.M.

||2a



() So then, let no one find fault with its maker when examining

a given wild beast in itself; instead, he should consider what use it

might serve. Indeed, the human body, though possessing limbs en-

dowed with great beauty, coördination, and utility, also has mucous,spittle, and malodorous excrement. But no one in his right mind

criticizes the animal on this basis. Life would be impossible without

these fluids, and by these the body is watered and flourishes, requir-

ing, as it does, gall, blood, and both kinds of bile. As it needs these to

grow, it is through them that it also deteriorates; excess or deficiency

in any one of the aforementioned causes the dissolution of the liv-

ing creature. Similarly, if you were to cut off a single joint of yourfingers, you would find it completely useless, but when left in place,

it does the body great service.

This is how we should judge: not focusing on each item of cre-

ation in isolation, but examining its usefulness to the whole. Fire,

for example, can scorch, not only destroying bodies but also burn-

ing houses, ships, and crops, yet it is one of the four basic elements

of which everything is composed, and mortal nature cannot survive

without it. Similarly, water inundates the land, destroys houses, and

is responsible for the death of great numbers of sailors. It also harms

people who drink it at the wrong time or in excessive quantities, but

no one who was not entirely mad ever categorized water as deadly. It

irrigates the land and nourishes plants, brute beasts, and human be-

ings. So, this is how we examine each of the other creatures; we do

not look at it in isolation to see whether it is harmful or beneficial

but consider whether it contributes somehow to the common good.

Indeed, even wild animals respect man because of the authority

he was given over them at the beginning, though they occasionally

scorn him for breaking God’s law. It is a general rule that wicked

slaves despise the supervisors to whom their masters have subjected

Question



despotw' n kekeleusmev nou" o{tan i[dwsi dia; plhmmelhvmata

parrhsiva" ejsterhmev nou".

Tiv ni oJ Qeo;" ei[rhke, poihvswmen a[nqrwpon katæ eijkovna

hJ metev ran kai; kaqæ oJ moivwsin ; a

() Tine;" me; n tw' n duswnuvmwn aiJretikw' n pro;" tou;" ajggevlou"

aujto; n eijrhkev nai |kai; tou;" ponhrou;" daivmona" e[ fasan, ouj

suniev nte" oiJ ejmbrov nthtoi to; katæ eijkovna hJ metev ran. Qeou' dev,kai; ajggevlwn, kai; daimov nwn ou[te hJ oujsiva ou[te eijkw; n hJ aujthv: oJ

me; n ga;r ajiv >dion e[ cei th; n fuvsin, oiJ de; aujto; n e[ cousi poihth; n

kai; dhmiourgov n, paræ aujtou' dedegmev noi to; ei\ nai. oiJ de;

daivmone" kai; eij" ponhrivan eJkov nte" ejtravphsan: aj noiva" toiv nun

ejscavth" to; mivan uJpo||labei' n eijkov na tw' n ponhrw' n daimov nwn kai;

tou' pelavgou" th'" ajgaqovthto~.

jIoudai'oi de; eij" eJtevran ejxwvkeilan parafrosuv nhn: fasi;

ga;r pro;" eJauto; n eijrhkev nai to; n tw' n o{lwn Qeo; n to;

poihvswmen a[nqrwpon katav tina mivmhsin tw' n ta;" megavla"

pepisteumev nwn ajrcav". kai; ga;r u{parcoi kai; strathgoi;

plhquntikw'" eijwvqasi levgein to; keleuvomen, kai; gravfomen, kai;

prostavttomen, kai; o{sa toiau'ta. kai; ouj sunei'don oiJ

paraplh'ge" wJ" eJ nikw'" ta; plei'sta oJ tw' n o{lwn levgei Qeov":

kairov", gavr fhsi, panto;" ajnqrwvpou h{kei ejnantivon mou:b kaiv,

ejnequmhvqhn o{ti ejpoivhsa to;n a[nqrwpon:c kaiv, ajpaleivyw to;n a[nqrwpon:d kaiv, oujk e[sontaiv soi qeoi; e{teroi plh;n ej mou' :e kaiv,

ijdou; ejgw; poiw' kaina; a} nu' n ajnatevllei:f kaiv, ajnoivxw ejpi; tw' n

oj revwn phga;" kai; ejpi; tw' n bounw' n potamouv",g kai; ej n pavsh/ dev,

wJ" ejpivpan, th' / qeiva/ grafh' / eJ nikw'" e[stin ajkou'sai tou' tw' n o{lwn


|37

||5

(inc.), , B, C, * [ ] (inc.) = mss.

a. Gn .mmb. Gn . (LXX)mmc. Gn .mmd. Gn .mme. Ex .mmf. Is .mmg. Is . (LXX var.)



them whenever they realize that, because of their failings, their su-

pervisors can no longer exercise a free hand.

To whom did God say, “Let us make the human being in our im-

age and likeness”?a

() Some ill-omened heretics have claimed that he was speaking

to the angels and the wicked demons, but these madmen failed to

understand the phrase “in our image.”1

God, the angels, and thedemons do not share the same essence or image. His nature is eter-

nal, whereas the others receive their existence from him, their Mak-

er and Creator. The demons are those who, of their own accord,

turned to evil. So, it is the height of folly to suppose that the wicked

demons and the ocean of goodness have one and the same image.

Now, the Jews rushed headlong into a different delusion. They

claim that, in imitation of those entrusted with important responsi-

bilities, the God of the universe addresses himself in “Let us make

the human being.” After all, it is conventional for governors and gen-

erals to use the plural: “We order,”“we write,” “we command,” and so

forth.2 Crazed, as they are, the Jews do not understand that the God

of the universe generally speaks in the singular: “The time for all has

come before my sight”;b “I am angry that I created man”;c “I shall

blot out man”;d “You shall have no other gods beside me”;e “Lo, I amdoing new things that are already taking effect”;f and “I shall make

springs gush forth on the mountains, and rivers on the hills.”g In

Question

.Theodoret may be referring to the Gnostics who attributed the creation of the visible world to a subordinate power, the demiurge; cf. Iren., Haer. ..–..

. The first person plural verb form presents a crux interpretum. Seeing a refer-

ence to the Trinity, Theodoret rejects the Jewish notion of a simple royal plural. Incontrast, Speiser, regarding (on .) the question as “one of grammar alone, with-out a direct bearing on the meaning,” takes the plural as due to the form of the



dialegomev nou Qeou'. ojligavki" de; plhquntikw'" th; n diavlexin

schmativzei, tw' n th'" triavdo" proswvpwn ejmfaiv nwn to; n ajriqmov n:

kai; ga;r hJ nivka ta;" glwvssa" sunev ceen ouj c eJ nikw'" ei\pe,

katabhvsomai kai; sugcew' ta;" glwvssa", ajlla;deu' te,.......katabavnte" sugcevwmen .......aujtw' n ta;" glwvssa".h

() Kai; ej ntau'qa toiv nun, ejpeidh; to; logiko; n dievplatte zw' /on,

o} meta; polla;" aj nakainivzein h[melle geneav", tai'" th'" aJgiva"

triavdo" ejpiklhvsesi telesiourgw' n to; panavgion bavptisma,

mevllwn dhmiourgei' n th; n ejkei' na paralhyomev nhn ta; musthvria

fuvsin, aij nigmatwdw'" kai; to; taujto; n th'" oujsiva" kai; to; n tw' nproswvpwn paredhvlwsen ajriqmov n. tw' / fav nai me; n gavr, ei\ pen oJ

Qeov", to; koino; n th'" qeiva" dedhvlwke fuvsew": ejpagagw; n de; to;

poihvswmen, ej nev fhne tw' n proswvpwn to; n ajriqmov n. ou{tw pavlin

eJ nikw'" me; n eijpwv n, th;n eijkovna, to; taujto; n th'" fuvsew" e[deixen:

ouj ga;r ei\pe, katæ eijkov na", ajlla; katæ eijkovna: hJ metev ran de;

eijrhkwv", to; n tw' n uJpostavsewn dedhvlwken ajriqmov n. a{panta ga;r

proorw' n oJ tw' n o{lwn Qeo;" wJ" h[dh gegenhmev na ta; mhvpw

genovmena kai; proqewrw' n th; n tou' monogenou'" savrkwsiv n, te kai;

ej nanqrwvphsin, kai; wJ" tauvthn th; n fuvsin ejk parqev nou lhv yetai,

kai; ou{tw" eJautw' / sunav yei, te kai; eJ nwvsei wJ" e} n provswpon Qeou'

te kai; aj nqrwvpou noei'sqai, kai; mivan aujtw' / proskuv nhsin para;

th~ ktivsew" aJpavsh" prosfevresqai, mavla eijkovtw" kai; aujth; n

tou' gev nou" th; n krhpi'da timh'" megivsth" hjxivwse. kai; prw'ton

boulh; n th'" dhmiourgiva" protavxa" i{ na tou' dhmiourgoumev nou to;

logiko; n proshmav nh/, ei\ta tw' n proswvpwn paradhlwvsa" to; najriqmo; n i{ na tou;" u{mnou" oJ mevllwn prosfevrein ejpi; th'" gh'"

lavbh/ qeologiva" aij nivgmata, kai; oiJonei; aujtourgo;" th'"


l. dialegomev nou , , Sir. Sch. : dialegovmenon [ ] :dialegoumev nou F.M. While the TLG lists attestations for dialegom- andprosdialegom- in other passages of the works of Theodoret, it offers only three for the stem in -goum- for the entirety of Greek literature. In the Quaest.in oct. alone there are seven other uses of the stem in -gom- for none of which

does F.M. record a variant in -goum-. Cf. dialegovmeno~ in Q. (l. , p. of the Madrid ed.).

h. Gn .mm



short, throughout the whole of holy Scripture, one can hear God

speaking in the singular. But in a few cases, he uses plural forms to

bring out the distinction of number of the persons of the Trinity.

When he confused the languages, he did not say in the singular, “Ishall go down and confuse the languages,” but “Come, let us go

down and confuse their languages.”h

() Here too, then, as he was forming the rational being, whom

he would renew many generations later through the institution of

most holy baptism with the invocation of the Holy Trinity—when

he was on the point of creating the nature that would inherit that

sacrament—he gave a riddling indication of both the identity of substance and the numerical distinction of persons. With “God

said,” he indicated the divine nature held in common, and adding,

“Let us make,” he revealed the numerical distinction of persons.

Likewise, by saying “image” in the singular, he brought out the iden-

tity of nature. He did not say “images,” but “image.” Yet, when he

said “our” he indicated the numerical distinction of the hypostases.

Foreseeing what is not yet as already in existence and discerning in

advance the enfleshment and Incarnation of the Only-begotten, his

taking human nature from a virgin and joining and uniting it to

himself, so that one person, both God and man would be acknowl-

edged, to whom one adoration would be offered by all creation, it

was entirely reasonable for the God of the universe to deem the

foundation of the race worthy of the highest honor. First, taking

previous counsel about his creation so as to signal in advance the ra-

tional character of the creature, then indicating the numerical dis-tinction of the persons, so that he who was to offer hymns of praise

on earth might grasp clues to the true doctrine of God, and then be-

coming, as it were, himself the very artisan of this moulding, he dis-

Question

subject, God (’elohim). Unlike Speiser and like Theodoret, von Rad regards (on.–) the form as theologically meaningful, but his interpretation is closest to

the first that Theodoret rejects: “The extraordinary .......prevents one from referringGod’s image too directly to God the Lord. God includes himself among the heav-enly beings and thereby conceals himself in this multiplicity.”



diaplavsew" genovmeno", e[deixe th; n pleivona peri; tovde to;

plavsma filostorgivan. tou'to kai; ∆Iw;b oJ gennai'o" pro;" aujto; n

boa' /, levgwn, aiJ cei' rev" sou ejpoivhsavn me kai; e[plasavn me:i

touvtoi" ej crhvsato toi'" lovgoi" kai; oJ qei'o" Dabivd: j tou'to kai; oJtou' aJgivou baptivsmato" ajxiouvmeno" ginwvskei safw'", wJ" oJ

plavsa" dievswse, kai; oJ swvsa" dievplase: pro;" de; touvtoi", kai;

aujto;" oJ dhmiourgo;" kai; dia; ÔIeremivou kai; dia; ∆Hsaiv >ou fhsiv n

o{ti, hJ mei' " .......phlov", aujto;" de; plavsth" hJ mw' n.k ajllæ ou[te cei'ra"

e[ cein to; qei'on ou[te dei'sqai boulh'" tino" kai; proqewriva"

fame; n i{ na, kata; tou;" Plavtwno" muvqou", pro;" th; n th'"

ej nqumhvsew" ijdevan kataskeuavsh/ to; poiv hma.l

ajlla; touvtwn e{kaston th; n pleivona tou' Qeou' peri; tovde to; zw' /on khdemonivan

dhloi'.

Tiv ejsti to; katæ eijkovna;a

() Tine;" to; ajovraton th'" yuch'" eijkovna Qeou' keklhvkasin.

ajllæ oujk ajlhqw'" eijrhvkasin: eij ga;r eijkw; n tou' Qeou' th'" yuch'"

to; ajovraton, ma'llon a] n eijkov ne" tou' Qeou' klhqei' en a[ggeloi,

kai; ajrcavggeloi, kai; pa'sai aiJ ajswvmatoi kai; a{giai fuvsei", a{te

dh ; pantavpasi swmavtwn ajphllagmev nai kai; ajmige;" to; ajovraton

e[ cousai.

Tine;" de; uJpo; pollh'" euj hqeiva" to; sw'ma to; aj nqrwvpinon katæ

eijkovna Qeou' gegenh'sqaiv fasin, ejpeidh; th'" qeiva" legouvsh" ejpakouvousi grafh'", a[noixon .......tou;" ojfqalmouv" sou' kai; i[de:


i. Jb .mm j. Ps .mmk. Is . (LXX var.)mml. Pl., Ti. a-b

(inc.), , B, c, * , [ ] = mss.

ll. f a{te dh; , , , Sir. : a{te de; Sch. F.M. In the Quaest. in oct. thereare fourteen more examples of a{te dh;, but (with the exception of the apparentmisprint at l. , p. of the Madrid ed.) no other example of a{te de;.

a. Gn .f.mm



played his extraordinary affection for what he had formed. The no-

ble Job cried to him in a loud voice, “Your hands made me and

formed me.”i And the divinely inspired David used the very same

words, j and all who are accorded holy baptism know clearly that hewho formed saved, and he who saved formed. In addition, the Cre-

ator himself declared through both Jeremiah and Isaiah, “We are

clay, and he our potter.”k Yet, we declare that the divinity had no

hands nor any need of counsel or foresight in order, as Plato’s stories

would have it, to make his artifact match the plan of his design. l In-

stead, each of these details illustrates God’s extraordinary care for

this being.

What is the meaning of “in the image”?1a

() Some commentators have referred the phrase “the image of

God” to the invisibility of the soul;2 but they are mistaken. If the in-

visibility of the soul constituted God’s image, angels and archangels,

along with all the incorporeal and holy natures, would with greater

reason be called God’s images. After all, they are completely free of

bodies and possess an invisibility that is quite uncompromised.

Other superficial commentators claim that the human body was

made in God’s image, since they hear holy Scripture saying, “Open

Question

. In this question Theodoret painstakingly assembles a broad range of viewsfrom many predecessors. The phrase “in the image and likeness” continues to posea challenge for modern commentators. For an interpretation based on materialsdiscovered at the site of ancient Ebla (Tell Mardikh) in NW Syria in the mid-twentieth century, v. M. Dahood, “Ebla, Ugarit and the Old Testament” and cf.

note below.. As Guinot points out (p. ), the first interpretation is that of the Alexandri-

an tradition generally; v. Or., hom. . in Gen. and Didym., in Gen. .



kaiv, kli' non .......to; ou\ " sou kai; a[kouson:b kaiv, wjsfravnqh Kuv rio" .

......ojsmh;n eujwdiva":c kaiv, to;.......stov ma Kurivou ejlavlhse tau' ta:d

kaiv, ejn th' / ceiri; aujtou' ta; pev rata th' " gh' ",e kai; o{sa toiau'ta,

kai; ouj sunei'don oiJ a[gan hjlivqioi wJ" aj nqrwvpoi" diæ aj nqrwvpwndialegovmeno", oJ despovth" Qeo;" th' / tw' n ajkouov ntwn ajsqeneiva/

tou;" lovgou" metrei' kaiv, ejpeidh; diæ oj fqalmw' n oJrw'men hJmei'",

th; n ojptikh; n aujtou' duv namin ojfqalmou;" oj nomavzei, kai; au\ pavlin

th; n ajkoustikh; n w\ ta, ejpeidh; dia; touvtwn tw' n morivwn ajkouvomen,

kai; to; provstagma stov ma. e[dei de; aujtouv", mh; touvtwn mov non

ajkouv ein tw' n lovgwn, ajlla; kai; tw' n to; ajperivgrafon tou' Qeou'

didaskov ntwn: pou' , gavr fhsi, poreuqw' ajpo; tou' pneuv matov" sou kai; ajpo; tou' proswvpou sou pou' fuvgw; eja;n ajnabw' eij" to;n

ouj ranovn, su; ejkei' ei\ : eja;n katabw' eij" to;n a{ /dhn, pav rei, kai; ta;

eJxh'":f kai; th' / samareivtidi oJ Kuvrio" e[ fh, pneu' ma oJ Qeov", kai;

tou;" proskunou' nta" aujto;n ejn pneuv mati kai; ajlhqeiva/ dei'

proskunei' n.g eij de; pneu'ma oJ Qeov", aJplou'" a[ra, kai; ajsuv nqeto",

kai; ajschmavtisto". ajlla; ga;r peritto; n tou'ton mhkuv nein to; n

lovgon: dhvlh ga;r touvtwn hJ a[ noia.

() To; toiv nun poihvswmen a[nqrwpon katæ eijkovna hJ metev ran

kai; kaqæ oJ moivwsin h tine;" tw' n didaskavlwn ou{tw" ej nov hsan: o{ti

th; n ktivsin th; n aijsqhthv n te kai; nohth; n pepoihkwv", oJ tw' n

o{lwn Qeo;" to; n a[ nqrwpon dievplasen e[scaton, oi |ov n tina eijkov na

eJautou' ej n mevsw/ teqeikw;" tw' n aj yuv cwn te kai; ejmyuv cwn kai;

aijsqhtw' n kai; nohtw' n i{ na ta; me; n a[ yucav te kai; e[myuca touvtw/

prosfevrh/, w{sper tina; fovron, th; n creivan, aiJ de; nohtai; fuvsei"

ej n th' / peri; tou'ton khdemoniva/ th; n peri; to; n pepoihkovtadeiknuvwsin eu[ noian. tou'to ga;r kai; oJ qei'o" ajpovstolo" e[ fh:

ouj ci; pavnte" eijsi; leitourgika; pneuv mata, eij" diakonivan

ajpostellov mena dia; tou;" mevllonta" klhronomei' n swthrivan ; i kai;

oJ Kuvrio" ej n toi'" eujaggelivoi", oJ ra' te mh; katafronhvshte eJno;"

tw' n mikrw' n touvtwn tw' n ejlacivstwn: aj mh;n ga; r levgw uJ mi' n o{ti oiJ


b. Kgs .mmc. Gn .mmd. Is .mme. Ps .mmf. Ps .f.mmg. Jn .mmh. Gn .mmi. Heb .



your eyes and see, incline your ears and hear”;b “The Lord smelt a

sweet fragrance”;c “The mouth of the Lord said this”;d “In his hands

are the ends of the earth,”e and similar statements. These simpletons

fail to understand that the Lord God, when speaking to humansthrough humans, adjusts his language to the limitations of the lis-

teners. Since we see with our eyes, he refers to his power of vision as

“eyes.” He refers to his power of hearing as “ears,” since it is through

these organs that we hear, and to his command as a “mouth.”3 But

they should have paid attention not only to these words but also to

those that teach of God’s uncircumscribed nature: “Where am I to

go from your Spirit, and where am I to flee from your face? If I as-cend to heaven, you are there; if I descend to Hell, you are present”

and so on.f Furthermore, the Lord said to the Samaritan woman,

“God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit

and in truth.”g Now, if God is spirit, surely he is simple, without

composition, and beyond representation. There is no point, howev-

er, in prolonging this argument, for their folly is obvious.

() Some commentators understand the verse, “Let us make the

human being in our image and likeness,”h in the following manner:

after completing the material and spiritual creation, the God of the

universe formed man last and set him like an image of himself in

the midst of the inanimate and the animate, the material and the

spiritual, so that the inanimate and the animate might offer him

their service as a kind of tribute, and the spiritual beings, by caring

for him, might manifest their love for the Creator.4 In fact, the holy apostle says,“Are they not all ministering spirits sent on a mission of

service for the sake of those who are due to inherit salvation?”i And

Question

. The citations support the second interpretation, which as Guinot remarks(p. ) was opposed by all Christian exegetes, Antiochene (v. Chrys. hom. .f in Gen.) as well as Alexandrian (Or., hom. . in Gen. and Didym., in Gen. ). It canbe refuted, Theodoret proceeds to say, by a simple acknowledgment of the princi-

ple of sugkatavbasi", i.e., God’s gracious condescension to the limits of humanunderstanding and language.. For the third interpretation, Guinot refers (p. ) to Gr. Nyss., Hom. opif. .



a[ggeloi aujtw' n .......kaqæ hJ mev ran oJ rw' si to; provswpon tou' patrov"

mou tou' ejn ouj ranoi' ". j

Tine;" de; katæ eijkovna Qeou' kata; to; ajrciko; n gegenh'sqai to; na[ nqrwpon e[ fasan, tekmhrivw/ kecrhmev noi safestavtw/ tw' / to; n

poihth; n ejpagagei' n, kai; aj rcevtwsan tw' n ij cquvwn th' " qalavssh",

kai; tw' n peteinw' n tou' ouj ranou' , kai; tw' n kthnw' n, kai; pavsh" th' "

gh' ", kai; pavntwn tw' n eJ rpetw' n, tw' n eJ rpovntwn ejpi; th' " gh' ":k

w{sper ga;r aujto;" tw' n o{lwn e[ cei th; n despoteivan, ou{tw devdwke

tw' / aj nqrwvpw/ tw' n ajlovgwn zwv /wn th; n ejxousivan.

[Esti de; kai; a[lla euJrei' n wJ" ajrcetuvpou mimhvmata.dhmiourgei' ga;r kai; a[ nqrwpo" kata; mivmhsin tou' pepoihkovto"

Qeou' kai; oijkiva", kai; teiv ch, kai; povlei", kai; limev na", kai; nau'",

kai; newvria, kai; a{rmata, kai; e{tera muriva oi |on oujranou'

ejktupwvmata kai; hJlivou, kai; selhv nh", kai; ajstevrwn ij ndavlmata,

|kai; aj nqrwvpwn kai; zwv /wn ajlovgwn eijkov na". ajllæ a[peiron to; th'"

dhmiourgiva" diav foron. oJ me; n ga;r tw' n o{lwn Qeo;" kai; ejx o[ ntwn

kai; ejk mh; o[ ntwn dhmiourgei' kai; div ca pov nou kai; crov nou: a{ma

ga;r tw' / boulhqh' nai paravgei to; dovxan. a[ nqrwpo" de; dei'tai me; n

u{lh", dei'tai de; kai; ojrgav nwn, kai; boulh'", kai; ej nqumhvsewn, kai;

crov nou, kai; pov nou, kai; tecnw' n eJtevrwn eij" th; n tou' genomev nou

kataskeuhv n: oJ ga;r oijkodovmo" dei'tai calkevw", kai; oJ calkeu;"

metallevw" kai; aj nqrakevw", kai; pav nte" oJmou' tw' n uJlotovmwn, kai;

oiJ uJlotovmoi tw' n futourgw' n te kai; gewrgw' n, kai; ou{tw" eJkavsth

tev cnh para; tw' n a[llwn tecnw' n th; n oijkeivan ejranivzetai creivan.

ajlla; kai; ou{tw dhmiourgw' n, oJ a[ nqrwpo" mimei'tai aJmh' gev ph/to; n poihth; n wJ" eijkw; n to; ajrcevtupon. kai; ga;r hJ eijkw; n e[ cei ta;

tou' ajrcetuvpou ij ndavlmata, ajlla; to; me; n tw' n morivwn ei\do" e[ cei,

ta;" de; ej nergeiva" oujk e[ cei: ejstevrhtai ga;r yuch'", diæ h |"

kinei'tai to; sw'ma.


|5

j. Mt . (NT var.)mmk. Gn .mm



the Lord in the sacred Gospels warns, “Be careful not to despise one

of the least of these little ones. Amen, I say to you, their angels day in

and day out gaze on the face of my Father in heaven.” j

Other commentators have claimed that humanity was made “inGod’s image” in the sense that it possesses the ability to rule. Their

clearest proof text is the command subsequent to the act of cre-

ation: “and let them rule over the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven,

the cattle, the whole earth, and all the reptiles crawling on the

earth.”k God, who enjoys lordship of all things, gave the human be-

ing authority over all irrational beings.5

In addition, one can discover other ways in which man imitateshis archetype.6 In imitation of the Creator, man also creates houses,

walls, cities, harbors, ships, dockyards, chariots, and countless other

things, including likenesses of heaven, representations of the sun,

moon, and stars, and images of people and brute beasts. Nonethe-

less, the difference in creating is infinite. The God of the universe

creates from both the existent and the non-existent, and, without ef-

fort or lapse of time, puts his intention into effect as soon he wills it.

But a human being who sets out to make an object requires materi-

al, as well as tools, planning, consideration, time, effort, and the as-

sistance of other trades. The builder requires a bronze smith, and

the bronze smith a metallurgist and a charcoal maker, and all of

these require woodcutters, while woodcutters require planters and

farmers; every trade borrows what it needs from the others. Yet cre-

ating even in this fashion, the human being to some extent imitates

the Creator as an image its archetype; the image has the external ap-pearance of its archetype, but not its capacity for action, since it

lacks the soul, which moves the body.

Question

. The fourth interpretation had been previously suggested by Didymus (in Gen. ), Diodore (Deconinck, frag. ), and Chrysostom (hom. ., .–, ., .in Gen.), but it is likely that Theodoret derived it from Diodore alone; cf. Guinot,p. . The Ebla tablets (cf . note above) lend support to the notion of the human

being acting as a deputy deity, for the word dimutu, occurring in their lists of deities, is akin to the Hebrew demuth = “likeness.” Of course, Theodoret wouldnot have known of this etymology.

. For the next four suggestions regarding the meaning of “image,” the human



Ou{tw pavlin kai; basileuv ei oJ a[ nqrwpo" kai; kriv nei kata;

mivmhsin tou' tw' n o{lwn Qeou'. ajllæ oJ me; n Qeo;" ouj kathgovrwn, ouj

martuvrwn dei'tai dikavzwn: ou{tw ga;r kai; to; n Kavi> n katevkrinen

wJ" aujtovpth" tou' muvsou" gegenhmev no":l oJ de; a[ nqrwpo" kriv nwnkai; martuvrwn dei'tai kai; kathgovrwn: ajgnoei' ga;r ta;

gegenhmev na.

Ou{tw kai; Qeo;" oJ a[ nqrwpo" wj nomavsqh, ejpeidh; eijkw;n

proshgoreuvqh Qeou' : ajnh; r.......gavr fhsin, oujk ojfeivlei

katakaluvptesqai th;n kefalhvn, eijkw;n kai; dovxa Qeou'

uJpav rcwn.m ajlla; pavlin oJ me; n tw' n o{lwn Qeo;" fuvsin e[ cei qeivan,

ouj proshgorivan yilhv n: oJ de; a[ nqrwpo", wJ" eijkwv n, tou[ noma e[ ceimov non, ejsterhmev no" tou' pravgmato".

() Ou{tw to; ajperivgrafon ajlhqw'" me; n kai; kurivw" ejsti; tou'

tw' n o{lwn Qeou': mimei'tai de; ou{tw pw" aujto; kai; oJ nou'" oJ

aj nqrwvpino". ej n ajkarei' ga;r perinostei' kai; ta; eJw' /a, kai; ta;

eJspevria, kai; ta; bovreia, kai; ta; novtia, kai; ta; ejpourav nia, kai;

ta; uJpocqov nia, ajllæ ouj th' / oujsiva/, mov nh/ de; th' / tou' logismou'

fantasiva/. oJ dev ge Qeo;" kai; th' / oujsiva/, kai; th' / sofiva/, kai; th' /

dunavmei to; ajperivgrafon e[ cei.

Eu{roi dæ a[ n ti" kai; eJtevran mivmhsin ajkribestevran ej n th' / tou'

aj nqrwvpou pavlin yuch' /. e[ cei ga;r aujth; kai; to; logiko; n kai; to;

zwtiko; n ej n eJauth' /, kai; genna' / me; n oJ nou'" to; n lovgon,

sumprov eisi de; tw' / lovgw/ pneu'ma, ouj gennwvmenon kaqavper oJ

lovgo", sumparomartou' n de; aj ei; tw' / lovgw/, kai; sumproi>o; n

gennwmev nw/. ajlla; tau'ta wJ" eijkov ni provsesti tw' / aj nqrwvpw/, ou | dh;

cavrin kai; aj nupovstato" oJ lovgo" ejsti; kai; to; pneu'ma. ejpi; de;th'" aJgiva" triavdo" trei'" noou'men ta;" uJpostavsei" kai;

ajsugcuvtw" hJ nwmev na" kai; kaqæ eJauta;" uJ festwvsa". gegev nnhtai

me; n ga;r pro; tw' n aijwv nwn ejk tou' patro;" oJ Qeo;" lovgo":

aj cwvristo" dev ejsti tou' gennhvsanto": kai; ejkporeuv etai ejk tou'

Qeou' kai; patro;" to; panavgion pneu'ma, noei'tai de; kai; ej n ijdiva/


l. Gn .mmm. Cor .mm



Likewise, humans reign and judge in imitation of the God of the

universe. Yet, in judging, God has no need of witnesses for prosecu-

tion or defense, for it was as an eyewitness to the abominable crime

that he condemned Cain.l In contrast, given his ignorance of thefacts, when man sits in judgment, he needs witnesses for defense

and prosecution.

Again, man has been called “God” inasmuch as he has been

styled “image of God.” Scripture declares, “A male does not need to

cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God;”m but the

God of the universe has the nature, not merely the title of divinity,

while man, as an image, possesses only the name and lacks the reali-ty.7

() Similarly, the property of being uncircumscribed belongs re-

ally and truly to the God of the universe, though the human mind

imitates this to some extent. In a moment it surveys east and west,

north and south, high and low—but not in actual presence, only

through its mental powers of imagination. God, on the other hand,

is uncircumscribed in his being, his wisdom, and his power.

Now, one might discover a further, more precise, resemblance in

the human soul. This is both rational and vital. The mind begets the

word, and with the word proceeds a breath, not begotten like the

word, but always accompanying the word and proceeding with it

when the word is begotten. But this is characteristic of the human

being as a mere image. Hence, the word is without substance, as is

the breath. In the Holy Trinity, by contrast, we understand threesubstances, united without confusion, and subsisting of themselves.

God the Word has been begotten of the Father before the ages but is

inseparable from the one who begat him, and the most Holy Spirit

proceeds from the God and Father, and is also understood as an in-

Question

being as builder, as judge, as possessor of wide-ranging vision, and as rational and

vital being, Theodoret follows Theodore of Mopsuestia (Devreesse, Essai, pp.–).

. Like all writers of ancient Greek, Theodoret often uses the nouns “man” =“human being” (a[ nqrwpo") and “man” = “male” (aj nhvr) interchangeably. None-



uJpostavsei: pavnta, gavr fhsi,.......ejnergei' to; e}n kai; to; aujto;

pneu' ma diairou' n ijdiva/ eJkavstw/ kaqw;" bouvletai.n ajlla; peri;

touvtou mhkuv nein to; n lovgon ouj dei': muriva" ga;r e[stin euJrei' n

ajpodeivxei" touvtou para; th' / qeiva/ grafh' /.

Tiv dhv pote diaferov ntw" th; n eJbdovmhn hJmevran eujlovghsen oJ

Qeov";a

JEkavsth tw' n a[llwn hJmerw' n ijdivan tina; dhmiourgivan ejdevxato: ejpeidh; toiv nun mev cri tauvth" suvmpasan th; n ktivsin

ejdhmiouvrghse, devdwken, aj nti; dhmiourgiva", th' / eJbdovmh/ hJmevra/

th; n eujlogivan i{ na mh; mov nh para; ta;" a[lla" ajgevrasto"

diameiv nh/. to; mev ntoi hJgivasen aujth;n aj nti; tou' ajfwv risen

tevqeike. pollacou' ga;r ou{tw tou'to noouvmenon e[stin euJrei' n

para; th' / qeiva/ grafh' /: kai; ga;r peri; tw' n mhvdwn fhsiv n,

hJgiasmevnoi eijsiv, kai; ejgw; a[gw aujtouv",b toutevstin, eij" tou'to

aj fwrismev noi. a[llw" te kai; ijoudaivoi" tau'ta suggrav fwn,

aj nagkaivw" to; hJgivasen aujth;n tevqeiken i{ na plei'on sevba"

ajponeivmwsi tw' / sabbavtw/: tou'to ga;r kai; nomoqetw' n e[ fh: o{ti

ejn .......e}x hJ mev rai" ejpoivhse Kuv rio" oJ Qeov" sou to;n ouj rano;n kai;

th;n gh' n:c th' / de; eJ bdov mh/ hJ mev ra/ katevpausen ajpo; pavntwn tw' n

e[ rgwn aujtou' , w |n ejpoivhsen .......kai; hJgivasen aujthvn.d


n. Cor .

, , B, C, [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .mmb. Is . (LXX var.)mmc. Ex . (LXX var.)mmd. Gn .f.



dividual substance: “The one and same Spirit activates everything

and allots to each one individually as he wishes.”8n There is no need,

however, to go on at length; one can find innumerable proofs of this

doctrine in holy Scripture.

Why did God give the seventh day a special blessing?a

Each of the other days received its own act of creation. Therefore,

since by this time he had finished making the whole of creation, heassigned the seventh day the blessing in place of an act of creation,

so that it would have no less honor than the other days. He used the

phrase “hallowed it” in the sense of “set it apart,” a sense you can of-

ten find in holy Scripture. For example, it says of the Medes, “They

are hallowed, and I lead them”;b that is, “they are set aside for this

purpose.” As Moses was writing for the Jews, he made the essential

addition, “He hallowed it,” so they would accord the Sabbath a

greater reverence. As you will recall, in his legislation for the Sab-

bath he declared, “In six days the Lord your God made heaven and

earth,c but on the seventh day he rested from all the labors of his

works and hallowed it.”1d

Question

theless, v. his comment on Ps . where he assures any women among his readersthat the initial blessing of the “happy man” (makavrio~ aj nhvr) should not be un-derstood as excluding women from the attainment of virtue.

. In this comparison between the human production of word and breath andthe begetting of “God the Word” by the Father and the procession of the Spiritfrom the Father alone, Theodoret applies to Trinitarian relationships terms thathad been sanctioned at Chalcedon to describe the subsistence in the one personof Christ of both the divine and human natures: cf. his ejpi; de; th'" aJgiva"triavdo" trei'" noou'men ta;" uJpostavsei", kai; ajsugcuvtw" hJ nwmev na" kai;kaqæ eJauta;" uJ festwvsa". gegev nnhtai me; n ga;r pro; tw' n aijwv nwn ejk tou'patro;" oJ Qeo;" lovgo": aj cwv risto" dev ejsti tou' gennhvsanto" with the Chal-cedonian e{ na kai; to; n aujto; n [oJmologoumen] UiJo; n, Kuvrion monogenh, ej n duvo

fuvsesin ajsugcuvtw~, ajtrevptw~, ajdiairevtw~, aj cwrivstw~ gnwrizovmenon;

v. T.H. Bindley and F.W. Green, p. .

. Relating the seventh day to the previous six, Theodoret offers an accurate



Tiv ejsti phgh; de; ajnev bainen ejk th' " gh' " kai; ejpovtize pa' n to;

provswpon th' " gh' " ; a

jEn kefalaivw/ pavlin oJ suggrafeu;" ta; peri; th'" ktivsew"

dihghvsato kai; ejdivdaxen o{ti mh; o[ nta ta; stoicei'a parhvgagen oJ

Qeov", kai; o{ti tau'ta ajpæ ajllhvlwn diecwvrise, kai; o{ti e{kaston

touvtwn diekovsmhsen wJ" hjqevlhse, kai; o{ti, mhvte tou' aj nqrwvpou

gewrgou' nto" th; n gh' n, mhvte tw' n nefw' n to; n uJ eto; n wjdinov ntwn,

beblavsthken wJ" oJ dhmiourghvsa" hjqevlhsen, ajrdeivan e[ cousath; n meta; to; n cwrismo; n tw' n uJdavtwn ej napomeiv nasan aujth' /

notivda te kai; ijkmavda.b ou{tw ga;r kai; ∆Akuvla" hJrmhv neuse: kai;

ejpiblusmo;" ajnev bh ejk th' " gh' " kai; ejpovtise pa' n to; provswpon

th' " cqonov".

Eij ejk tou' qeivou ejmfushvmato" gevgonen hJ yuchv,a ejk th'"

oujsiva" a[ra tou' Qeou' ejstin hJ yuchv;

jAsebeiva" ejscavth" kai; blasfhmiva" hJ toiauvth e[ nnoia: th'"

ga;r dhmiourgiva" th; n eujkolivan e[deixe dia; tou'to hJ qeiva grafhv.

pro;" de; touvtw/ kai; th'" yuch'" th; n fuvsin aij nivttetai: o{ti

pneu'mav ejstin ktistov n, ajovratov n te kai; noerov n, th'" tw' nswmavtwn ajphllagmev non pacuvthto". kajkei' no de; crh; sunidei' n:

o{ti dei' provteron noh'sai pneuvmona, kai; tou;" ajpoqlivbonta"

tou'ton mu'" kai; sustevllonta", kai; th; n sumpefukui'an ajrthrivan


, , B, C, [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .mmb. Gn .–mm

, , B, C, [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .



What is the meaning of “But a spring rose from the earth and

watered all the face of the earth”?a

The historian has related the story of creation once again, this

time in summary fashion, and taught that God produced the previ-

ously non-existent elements, that he separated them from one an-

other, that he arrayed each of them as he wished, and that the earth

produced plants in accordance with the will of the Creator, for it

drew irrigation from the moisture and humidity left over from thedivision of the waters.b Aquila, in fact, gave this rendering: “A gush-

ing water rose from the earth and watered the whole face of the

land.”1

If the soul is derived from the breath of God,a must it not be a

part of God’s being?

Such an idea is a piece of the worst irreligion and blasphemy.

Holy Scripture used this expression to bring out the ease of the cre-

ation. Moreover, it darkly suggests the nature of the soul: that it is a

created spirit, invisible and spiritual, free of the materiality of bod-ies. You should also understand that this idea would require us first

to imagine lungs, muscles to squeeze and contract them, a windpipe

attached to the lungs, a palate, and last of all a mouth to breathe in

Question

. Chrysostom, emphasizing the dependence of life on God’s command ratherthan on natural causes, had commented (hom. . in Gen.) on the apparentanomaly of crops growing without sun, rain, or human cultivation. He had ac-counted for the insertion of this second account of creation by explaining that the

Spirit deliberately chose to emphasize important facts already mentioned in ch. in order to forestall the later development of heresy; v. note to the “Introductionto Theodoret’ s Life and Works.”



tw' / pneuvmoni, kai; uJperwv /an, kai; stovma ei\qæ ou{tw" devxasqai to;

ejmfuvshma. eij de; to; qei'on ajswvmaton, qeoprepw'" a[ra kai; to;

ejmfuvshma nohtevon.

Tiv dhv pote to; n paravdeison ej fuvteusen oJ Qeov", mevllwn

eujqu;" to; n ∆Ada;m dia; th; n aJmartivan ejxorivzein ejkei'qen;a

Prw'ton oujk aj nev cetai ejk prognwvsew" katakri' nai oJ

despovth" Qeov": diov, kai; th; n paravbasin proorw' n, tw' n ajgaqw' naujtw' / metadevdwken. e[peita kai; gnw' nai aujto; n ta;" qeiva" dwrea;"

hjboulhvqh i{ na, touvtwn sterhqeiv", mishvsh/ th; n aJmartivan, wJ"

tosouvtwn aujto; n gumnwvsasan ajgaqw' n. pro;" de; touvtoi", e[dei

to; n divkaion ajgwnoqevthn toi'" th'" ajreth'" ajqlhtai'" proqei' nai

th'" nivkh" ta; a\qla: ou | dh; cavrin kai; peri; th'" tw' n oujranw' n

basileiva" e[ fh, deu' te, oiJ eujloghmevnoi tou' patrov" mou,

klhronomhvsate th;n hJtoimasmevnhn uJ mi' n basileivan ajpo;

katabolh' " kovsmou.b

Tine;" ej n oujranw' / fasi to; n paravdeison ei\ nai.

Th'" qeiva" legouvsh" grafh'", ejxanevteilen e[ti oJ Qeo;" ejk th' "

gh' " pa' n xuvlon wJ rai' on eij" o{ rasin kai; kalo;n eij" brw' sin,a

tolmhro; n a[gan to; toi'" oijkeivoi" ajkolouqei' n logismoi'"

katalipov nta" th; n didaskalivan tou' pneuvmato".


, , B, C, [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .; .mmb. Mt .

, , B, C, [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .



air.1 But, if the divinity is incorporeal, surely his breath should also

be thought of in a manner befitting God.

Why did God plant the Garden of Paradise from which he would

soon exclude Adam as a result of his sin?a

First, the Lord God does not countenance condemnation on the

basis of foreknowledge. Hence, though foreknowing the fall, hemade him share in his blessings. Next, his intention was that Adam

should experience the divine gifts, so that, when deprived of them,

he would hate sin for stripping him of such wonderful blessings.

Also, the Righteous Arbiter had to set the prize of victory before the

athletes of virtue. Thus, he said of the Kingdom of Heaven, “Come,

you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for

you from the foundation of the world.”1b

Some commentators locate Paradise in heaven.

Since holy Scripture says, “God caused to grow up from the

ground every tree that is beautiful to behold and good to eat,”a it isquite rash to abandon the teaching of the Spirit and follow one’s

own reasoning.1

Question

. Theodoret evinces an interest in anatomy also in his comment on the term“crop” = “gullet” in Q. . on Lv (on .).

. Theodoret presents the fall in largely positive terms; v. sec. of the “Intro-

duction to Theodoret’ s Life and Works.”

. Theodoret concisely disposes of the Alexandrian view (v. Or., Sel. in Gen.



To; xuvlon th' " zwh' " .......kai; to; xuvlon tou' eijdevnai gnwsto;n

kalou' kai; ponhrou' a nohta; crh; levgein h] aijsqhtav;

jEk th'" gh'" beblasthkev nai kai; tau'ta ei\pen hJ qeiva grafhv:

ouj toiv nun eJtevran tina; fuvsin e[ cei para; ta; a[lla futav. w{sper

ga;r to; tou' staurou' xuvlon xuvlon ejsti; kai; swthv rion

oj nomavzetai dia; th; n ejk th'" peri; aujto; pivstew" swthrivan

prosginomev nhn, ou{tw kai; tau'ta futa; mev n ejstin ejk th'" gh'"

beblasthkovta, dia; de; to; n qei'on o{ron qavteron aujtw' n xuvlon zwh' " wj nomavsqh, to; de; e{teron, dia; to; peri; aujto; genevsqai th'"

aJmartiva" th; n ai[sqhsin, xuvlon ejklhvqh gnwsto;n kalou' kai;

ponhrou' . kai; peri; tou'to me; n oJ ajgw; n tw' / ∆Ada;m proetevqh, to; de;

th'" zwh'" oi |ov n ti e[paqlon prou[keito tethrhkovti th; n ej ntolhv n.

ou{tw kai; oiJ patriavrcai kai; cwrivoi" kai; frevasi ta;" ejpwnumiva"

ejpevqhkan. kai; to; me; n ejkavlesan frevar oJ ravsew",b oujk ejpeidh;

oJratikh; n duv namin ej carivzeto, ajllæ ejpeidh; w[ fqh paræ aujtw' / tw' no{lwn oJ Kuvrio": kai; frevar euj rucwriva",c ejpeidhv, peri; tw' n a[llwn

freavtwn pollavki" oiJ ajpo; Geravrwn diamacesavmenoi, oujk

hj nwv clhsan toi'" tou'to kateskeuakovsi to; frevar: ou{tw frevar

o{ rkou d dia; to; paræ aujtw' / gegenh'sqai tou;" o{rkou". ou{tw" hJ

Louza; Baiqh;l wj nomavsqh, toutevstin oi\ ko" Qeou' ,e ejpeidh; w[ fqh

tw' / ∆Iakw;b ej n ejkeiv nw/ ge tw' / cwrivw/ tw' n o{lwn oJ poihthv": kai;

bouno;" mav rtu",

f

oujk ejpeidh; e[myuco" h\ n oJ bounov", ajllæ o{ti ej n ejkeiv nw/ tw' / cwrivw/ pro;" ajllhvlou" ejpepoiv hnto ta;" sunqhvka".

ou{tw" u{dwr zw' n g kalei'tai to; bavptisma, oujk ejpeidh; fuvsin

eJtevran e[ cei to; tou' baptivsmato" u{dwr, ajllæ o{ti diæ ejkeiv nou


, , B, C, [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .mmb. Gn .mmc. Gn .mmd. Gn ., mme. Gn .mmf. Gn .mmg. Jn .



Should the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and

evila be taken as spiritual or material?

According to holy Scripture, they also sprouted from the ground,

so they had a nature no different from that of other plants. Just as

the tree of the cross was a tree and is called “saving” because salva-

tion is accomplished by faith in it, so these trees were products of

the soil. By divine decree the one was called the “tree of life,” the

other, since the perception of sin occurred in connection with it,“the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”1 Adam was set a trial

with regard to the latter, whereas the tree of life was proposed as his

prize for keeping the commandment. Similarly, the patriarchs be-

stowed names on places and wells. They called one “well of vision,”b

not because it granted the faculty of sight, but because the Lord of

the universe was seen near it, and another “well of broad places,”c

because the people of Gerar, who had often fought over the otherwells, did not interfere with those digging this one. Likewise, there

was a “well of the oath”d because people used to swear oaths nearby.

And the name “Bethel” or “House of God” was given to Luz,e be-

cause that was where the Creator of the universe appeared to Jacob.

There was a “hill of witness,”f not that the hill was alive, but because

that was where they made treaties with one another. Likewise bap-

tism is called “living water,”

g

not because the water of baptism has adifferent nature, but because, through that water, divine grace con-

Question

and Didym., in Gen. ; cf. Guinot p. ). Perhaps he was aware that Chrysostomhad already condemned (hom. . in Gen.) this position as a product of philo-sophical arrogance. In his commentary on Genesis ( fragg. in Gen. .) Theodore of Mopsuestia had emphasised the physical reality of Paradise by discussing its loca-tion within the larger geographical unit of Eden, and in his comment on Gal .

he had criticized those who, giving an allegorical interpretation of the garden, de-

nied the historicity of the account of the Fall.

. Theodoret evinces a balanced Antiochene recognition of levels of meaning:



tou' u{dato" hJ qeiva cavri" th; n aijwv nion dwrei'tai zwhv n. ou{tw

xuvlon zwh' " dia; to; n qei'on o{ron ejklhvqh, kai; xuvlon gnwvsew", dia;

th; n peri; tou'to gegenhmev nhn ai[sqhsin th'" aJmartiva". oujdevpw

ga;r pei'ran eijlhfovte" th'" aJmartiva", ei\ta, tou' ajpeirhmev noumeteilhcovte" karpou', wJ" parabebhkovte" th; n ej ntolhv n, ta;"

tou' suneidovto" ajkivda" ejdevxanto.

Oujkou' n ei\ con th; n gnw'sin tou' ajgaqou' kai; tou' kakou' pro;th'" tou' ajpeirhmev nou karpou' metalhv yew";

Kai; pw'" oiJov n te h\ n tou;" lovgw/ tetimhmev nou" kai; katæ

eijkov na qeivan gegenhmev nou" oujk e[ cein diavkrisin ajgaqou' kai;

kakou'; pw'" dæ a] n aujtoi'" ejteqeivkei novmon th'" dikaiosuv nh" hJ

a[busso", tauvthn oujk e[ cousin ej n th' / fuvsei th; n gnw'sin, mhde;

ginwvskousin wJ" ajgaqo; n me; n to; fulavxai th; n ej ntolhv n, ojlevqrion

de; to; parabh' nai; ei\ con ou\ n a[ra th; n gnw'sin: th; n de; pei'ran

prosevlabon u{steron.

Pw'" ou\ n meta; th; n brw'sin e[gnwsan o{ti gumnoi; h\san; pro;

ga;r th'" brwvsew" tauvthn oujk ei\ con th; n ai[sqhsin.a

Oujde; ta; komidh' / neva paidiva ejruqria' n pev fuke th'" ejsqh'to"gegumnwmev na. kata; bracu; dev, tou' swvmato" aujxanomev nou, kai;

tou' nou' loipo; n ajrcomev nou th; n oijkeivan fuvsin ejpideiknuv nai,

oujkevti loipo; n forhth; toi'" meirakivoi" hJ guvmnwsi", ajllæ


, , B, C, [ ] = mss.

, , B, C, [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .



fers the gift of eternal life. Thus, the “tree of life” received its name

from the divine decree and the “tree of knowledge” from the sense

of sin gained in connection with it. To that point, they had no expe-

rience of sin, but afterwards, when they had partaken of the forbid-den fruit, they suffered the pangs of conscience for breaking the

commandment.

So they did possess the knowledge of good and evil before par-taking of the forbidden fruit?

How could those endowed with reason and made in the divine

image be unable to distinguish good and evil? How could the

Depths of Righteousness impose a law on those who were naturally

unprovided with this knowledge and unaware that it was good to

keep the commandment and fatal to break it? So it follows that they

had the knowledge, and what they gained later was experience.1

So how was it that, after eating, they knew they were naked? After

all, they had no such knowledge before eating.a

Nor do infants possess any natural shame of their nakedness.Soon, however, as the body develops, and the mind begins to reveal

its natural properties, youngsters can no longer tolerate nakedness.

Question

the trees are real trees, but they signify something further. Not surprisingly, thebishop illustrates his exegesis with a sacramental analogy: the water of baptism,though real water, has become as well the vehicle of salvation; v. sec. of the “In-troduction to Theodoret’ s Life and Works.”

. Chrysostom had responded (hom. . in Gen.) equally vigorously—and atcharacteristically greater length—to this questioning of divine justice.



ejruqriw'si kai; peribavllontai, ka[ n ti" aj fevlhtai th; n ejsqh'ta,

tai'" cersi; ta; paidogov na kaluvptousi movria. pollw' n de; kai; to;

e[qo" aj fairei'tai tauvthn th; n aijscuv nhn. kai; ga;r oiJ nau'tai,

gumnoi; plevonte", kai; oiJ louovmenoi, gumnoi; uJpæ ajllhvlwnoJrwvmenoi, tauvthn ej ntau'qa th; n aijscuv nhn oujk e[ cousin: eja; n dev

ti" e[xw tw' n balaneivwn gumno;" h\ /, livan ejruqria' /. ou{tw kai; oiJ

peri; to; n ∆Adavm, eujqu;" me; n diaplasqev nte", oi |a dh; nhvpioi, kai;

eujqugenei'", kai; th'" aJmartiva" ajmuv htoi, oujk hj /scuv nonto div ca

peribolaivwn diavgonte": meta; de; th; n pei'ran, toi'" fuvlloi" e[ nia

tou' swvmato" sunekavluyan movria.

Pw'" ejk tou' paradeivsou fhsi; n oJ Mwu>sh'" to; n Tivgrhta

ejxiev nai kai; to; n Euj fravthn, ou}" fasiv tine" ejk tw' n ojrw' n

aj nabluvzein th'" ∆Armeniva";a

[Estin ijdei' n kai; a[llou" potamou;" eJtevrwqen me; n ejxiov nta",

e[peita de; eij" th; n gh' n diav tinwn kataduvsewn cwrou' nta", kai;

pavlin a[ nwqen aj nabluvzonta". tou'to kai; ejpi; touvtwn gegev nhtai

tw' n potamw' n: ejxivasi me; n ga;r ejkei'qen w{" fhsin hJ qeiva grafhv,

ei\ta, diav tinwn uJpogeivwn dii>ov nte" povrwn, eJtevra" ajrca;"

ej ntau'qa lambav nousi.

Tou'to de; ouj mavthn ou{tw" wj /konovmhsen oJ tw' n o{lwn Qeov",

ajlla; th; n peritth; n tw' n aj nqrwvpwn polupragmosuv nhn ejkkovptwn:

eij ga;r dh'lo" h\ n aujtw' n a{pa" oJ povro", ejpeiravqhsan me; n a[ ntine", para; ta;" touvtwn o[ cqa" oJdeuvonte", to; tou' paradeivsou

katopteu'sai cwrivon: dihmavrtanon de; tou' poqoumev nou kai; tw' /

mhvkei th'" oJdoiporiva" koptovmenoi, kai; th' / spav nei tw' n

aj nagkaivwn diafqeirovmenoi, kai; nu' n me; n eij" duscwriva", nu' n de;

eij" ejrhmiva" ejmpivptonte", e[sti de; o{te kai; ajphnevsi kai;


, , B, C, [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .,



They feel shame and put on clothes, and even if someone removes

their clothing, they cover their genitalia with their hands. Nonethe-

less, many people lose this shame through force of habit. Mariners

go naked while sailing, and bathers feel no shame when exposed toone another’s view. But if someone emerges naked from the baths,

he is quite embarrassed. Just so, soon after being created, Adam and

his partner, like newborn babes and innocent of sin, were not

ashamed to go about without clothing, but after experiencing sin,

they covered some parts of their bodies with leaves.1

How is it that Moses says the Tigris and the Euphrates flow out of

Paradise though some commentators claim they rise in the moun-

tains of Armenia?a

We can observe other rivers emerging at one point, then going

into the earth through channels, and once more coming to the sur-

face. This is the case with these rivers as well. Rising at that point in-

dicated by holy Scripture, they then travel though underground

passages and there take a different outlet.

Now, it was not without purpose that the God of the universe

arranged this; he wanted to put a stop to man’s pointless prying. Af-

ter all, if the whole course of these rivers had been visible, some peo-ple would have tried to follow their banks and spy out the site of

Paradise. But they would have been disappointed in this wish: tired

out by the length of the journey and wasted with hunger and some-

Question

. Theodoret here develops a point he may have felt Chrysostom treated (hom.. in Gen.) too briefly.



barbavroi" aj nqrwvpoi" peripivptonte". kai; touvtwn toiv nun

promhqouvmeno", oJ filoiktivrmwn Qeo;" ajdhvlou" aujtw' n tou;"

povrou" ajpev fhnen.

Tiv dhv pote ajpo; th'" pleura'" tou' ∆Ada;m th; n gunai'ka

dievplasen;a

Eij" oJmov noian hjboulhvqh ta; gev nh sunagagei' n oJ th'" fuvsew"

poihthv". touvtou cavrin to; n me; n ∆Ada;m ajpo; th'" gh'" dievplasen, ejk de; tou' ∆Ada;m th; n gunai'ka i{ na kai; to; taujto; n ejpideivxh/ th'"

fuvsew" kai; fusikhv n tina filostorgivan aujtoi'" peri; ajllhvlou"

ejmfuvsh/. eij gavr, kai; touvtwn ou{tw gegenhmev nwn, kai; a[ ndre"

gunaixi; diamav contai, kai; gunai'ke" aj ndravsin, tiv oujk a] n

e[drasan eij eJtevrwqev n poqen th; n gunai'ka dievplase;

Sofw'" ou\ n a[ra kai; diei'le kai; pavlin sunhvrmosen: oJ ga;r

gavmo" eij" e} n sunavgei ta; gev nh: e[sontai gavr, fhsin, oiJ duvo eij"

sav rka mivan.b kai; o{ti tou'to ajlhqe;" marturei' to; genovmenon:

dia; ga;r th'" gamikh'" oJmiliva" ei |" ejx ajmfoi' n blastav nei karpov",

ejk me; n touvtou speirovmeno", ejk de; tauvth" trefovmeno",

telesiourgouvmeno" de; uJpo; tou' th'" fuvsew" dhmiourgou'.


, , B, C, [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .f.mmb. Gn .



times ending up in impassable places, in the wilderness, or even

falling victim to fierce savages. Accordingly, in his care for man, the

compassionate God hid the course of these rivers.1

Why did he form the woman from the side of Adam?a

It was the will of the Creator of the order of nature to bring the

sexes together in harmony. Therefore, he formed Adam from theearth, and the woman from Adam, to demonstrate the identity of

nature and to instill in them a natural affection for each other. If

even after this, husbands fight with wives, and wives with husbands,

what would they not have done if he had formed the woman from

some other source?

He showed his wisdom not only in dividing, but also in reunit-

ing, them, for marriage combines the sexes into one. Scripture says,

remember, “The two will become one flesh.”1b The truth of this is

confirmed by experience. Through marital intercourse one fruit

sprouts up from both, its seed coming from him, its nourishment

from her, with the Creator of nature bringing it to full term.

Question

. Here again, Theodoret follows his Antiochene predecessors in insisting thatthe biblical narrative describes a real garden that could be located in the materialworld; cf. Q. and note .

. Theodoret here reveals some disillusionment with what he observes of therelations between the sexes. Unlike Theodore of Mopsuestia (Devreesse, Essai, pp.f. and note ), he does not take occasion from the creation of woman (.–)to highlight the biblical author’s understanding of the essential identity of the hu-

man nature bestowed upon both man and woman. Failing to derive any theologi-cally significant doctrine from vv. f., he concludes that procreation, even in theabsence of harmonious coëxistence, fulfils the Creator’s plan.



Eij frov nimo" oJ o[ fi",a kai; ejpainouvmeno": movrion ga;r hJ

frov nhsi" ajreth'".

Polla; tw' n oj nomavtwn oJmwnuvmw" profevretai: kai; ga;r ta;

ei[dwla tw' n ejqnw' n qeou;" wj nomavkasi, tou'to dev ge ajkribevsteron

peri; tou' ej n ejkeiv nw/ ej nerghvsanto" ei[rhtai daivmono". ajmaqw'" de;

oiJ aj nov htoi kai; tou;" peri; tou;" muvqou" ejscolakovta" sofou;"

proshgovreusan: ou{tw kai; hJ qeiva levgei grafhv: ejxelevxato oJ

Qeo;" ta; mwra; tou' kovsmou i{na kataiscuvnh/ tou;" sofouv":b kai;pavlin, pou' sofov":c kai; dia; tou' profhvtou, sofoiv eijsi tou'

kakopoih' sai.d toigavrtoi kaj ntau'qa frovnimon to; n o[ fin wJ"

panou'rgon wj novmasen. ou{tw ga;r kai; oJ ∆Akuvla" hJrmhv neusen: kai;

oJ o[fi" h\ n panou' rgo" ajpo; panto;" zwv /ou th' " cwv ra", ou | ejpoivhsen

Kuv rio" oJ Qeov".e

[Alogo" w] n oJ o[ fi", pw'" dielev cqh th' / Eu[a/;a

[ Organon h\ n aujto;" tou' th'" ajlhqeiva" ej cqrou'. kai; tou'to

dedhvlwken oJ Kuvrio" ej n toi'" qeivoi" eujaggelivoi": eijrhkw;" ga;r

toi'" ijoudaivoi", uJ mei' " ejk tou' patro;" uJ mw' n tou' diabovlou ejstev, ejphvgagen, ejkei' no" ajnqrwpoktovno" h\ n ajpæ aj rch' ".b ou |to" toiv nun

dia; tou' o[ few" dielev cqh th' / Eu[a/. ejpeidh; ga;r tw' n ajlovgwn

aJpav ntwn para; tou' Qeou' tw' n o{lwn th; n hJgemonivan eijlhv feisan,


, , B, C, [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .mmb.Cor .mmc. Cor .mmd. Jer .mme. Gn .

, , B, C, [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .–mmb. Jn .



If the serpent was described as “prudent,”a that was a title of

commendation, for prudence is one of the virtues.1

Many terms have an ambiguous connotation. People call the im-

ages of the nations “gods,” whereas this word is more precisely ap-

plied to the demon active in the image. And in their ignorance, fools

refer to those versed in mythological fables as “wise.” Thus holy

Scripture says, “God chose the foolish things of the world to con-

found the wise”;b and again, “Where is the wise man?”;c and,through the prophet, “They are wise in wrongdoing.”d Thus, in this

case, it called the serpent “prudent” because he is crafty. Indeed,

Aquila rendered: “The serpent was craftier than any other land ani-

mal created by the Lord God.”e

How was it that the serpent, though lacking reason, talked to

Eve?a

He was an instrument of the enemy of truth. The Lord also indi-

cated this in the holy Gospels when he declared to the Jews, “You are

from your father the devil” and added, “He was a murderer from thebeginning.”1b So it was he who spoke to Eve through the serpent.

You see, since the God of the universe had given them control of all

the irrational creatures, the devil set a trap for her through one of

Question

. While the NRSV uses the adjective “crafty” to describe the serpent, the LXX offers the superlative of the more positive epithet “prudent” or “sagacious” ( fro-

nimwvtato~).

. Chrysostom (hom. .: touvtw/ w{sper ojrgav nw/ tini; crwvmeno~) andTheodore of Mopsuestia (Devreesse, Essai, p. and note ) had also explained



diæ eJ no;" aujth' / tw' n uJphkovwn th; n pagivda proshv negke,

piqanwtevran ou{tw th; n ajpavthn kataskeuavzwn. o{ti de; kai;

aujtov n, to; n dia; tou' o[ few" ej nerghvsanta, o[fin hJ qeiva

prosagoreuv ei grafh; mavrtu" ∆Hsaiv >a" oJ profhvth" bow' n, th' /hJ mev ra/ ejkeivnh/ ejpavxei oJ Qeo;" th;n mav cairan aujtou' th;n

aJgivan ......., th;n megavlhn, kai; th;n ijscura;n ejpi; to;n dravkonta

to;n o[fin, to;n skolio;n kai; ijscurovn, ejpi; to;n dravkonta to;n o[fin,

to;n feuvgonta, to;n ejn th' / qalavssh/.c kai; oJ Kuvrio" de; toi'"

iJ eroi'" ei[rhke maqhtai'", ijdou; devdwka uJ mi' n th;n ejxousivan tou'

patei' n ejpavnw o[fewn, kai; skorpivwn, kai; ejpi; pa' san th;n

duvnamin tou' ej cqrou' .d

Tiv ejsti dihnoiv cqhsan oiJ ojfqalmoi; tw' n duvo; a

{ Oti kai; pro; th'" brwvsew" ouj memukovta" ei\ con tou;"

oj fqalmou;" dh'lon toi'" prosev cein ejqevlousi: pw'" ga;r ei\den hJ

gunh; to; xuvlon, o{ti kalo; n eij" brw'sin, kai; ajresto; n toi'"

oj fqalmoi'" ijdei' n, kai; wJrai'ov n ejsti tou' katanoh'sai eij mh;

aj new/govta" ei\ con tou;" oj fqalmouv"; oujkou' n th; n meta; th; n

aJmartivan ai[sqhsin ou{tw kevklhken hJ qeiva grafhv: eujqu;" ga;r

meta; th; n aJmartivan kenta'tai to; suneidov".


c. Is . (LXX var.)mmd. Lk .

, , B, C, [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .



their subjects and thus presented a more plausible deception. The

prophet Isaiah who cries out, “On that day God will strike with his

holy, mighty, strong sword the dragon, the serpent twisted and

strong, the dragon, the serpent fleeing in the sea,”c confirms thatholy Scripture calls “serpent” the one who was at work in the ser-

pent.2 Moreover, the Lord declared to the sacred disciples, “Lo, I

have given you power to walk on serpents and scorpions and on all

the might of the foe.”d

What is the meaning of “The eyes of both were opened”?a

Anyone who is paying attention can see that, even before eating,

their eyes were not closed. After all, unless her eyes were open, how

did the woman see that “the tree was good for eating, pleasant to be-

hold, and attractive to contemplate”? Thus, we conclude that holy

Scripture was referring to a sensation that followed the sin; immedi-

ately after the sin, they felt the pang of conscience.

Question

that the devil employed the body of the serpent to communicate with Eve. No An-tiochene commentator was prepared to regard any aspect of this narrative as lessthan entirely historical.

. Theodoret’s Antiochene recension of Isaiah differs significantly from theseptuagintal form that is more widely attested: Th' / hJmevra/ ejkeiv nh/ ejpavxei oJ Qeo;"

th; n mav cairan th; n aJgivan kai; th; n megavlhn kai; th; n ijscura; n ejpi; to; ndravkonta o[ fin feuvgonta, ejpi; to; n dravkonta o[ fin skoliov n, kai; aj nelei` to; ndravkonta.



Tiv dhv pote, tou' diabovlou th; n ajpavthn prosenegkov nto", oJ

o[ fi" kolavzetai;a

Kurivw" me; n th; n ajra; n tw' / ej nerghvsanti prosenhv nocen oJ

Qeov". o[ fi" ga;r kajkei' no" wj novmastai, ouj tauvthn para; tou'

Qeou' tw' n o{lwn th; n fuvsin dexavmeno": ajgaqo;" ga;r ejktivsqh kai;

tai'" ajswmavtoi" sunedhmiourghvqh dunavmesin. ejpeidh; de; eJkw; n

eij" ponhrivan ajpevkline, kai; th'" timh'", h |" ejx ajrch'" e[lacen,

ejsterhvqh kai; eij" th; n gh' n ajperriv fh.Kai; aujto; de; to; zw' /on eij" o[ nhsin tw' n aj nqrwvpwn ejdevxato th; n

ajrav n. oJrw' nte" ga;r to; n o[ fin ejpi; th'" gh'" surovmenov n te kai;

ijluspwvmenon, th'" ajrcaiva" ajra'" aj namimnhskovmeqa kai;

manqav nomen wJ" hJlivkwn provxeno" hJ aJmartiva kakw' n, ouj mov non

toi'" tauvthn ej nergou'sin, ajlla; kai; toi'" uJpourgou'si. kai; aujto;"

me; n oJ o[ fi" oujdemivan ej nteu'qen dev cetai blavbhn, ou{tw badivzein

pefukwv": ej n th' / fuvsei ga;r e[ cei to; toiov nde th'" kinhvsew" ei\do": oujde; n de; tw' n fusikw' n fortiko; n ei\ nai dokei'. oJ de;

a[ nqrwpo" pollh; n ej nteu'qen wj fevleian karpou'tai.


, , B, c, , [ ] = mss.

l. ijluspwvmenon (J.P.), (J.P.) (J.P.) (J.P.), Sir. : hlispomenonB –24 , : ijlusswvmenon Sch. F.M. Cf. Q . on Lv (ta; ejpi; th'" koiliva"ijluspwvmena). The minuscule ligatures for sp and ss are easily confused; cf.van Groningen, p. . The reading with -sp- is certainly carried by , , , and . The TLG offers no other attestation for forms of ijlussavomai, and the PGL only one (Areth. Apoc. = PG, vol. , col. B). But this, the participleiJluttwvmena, is actually written with rough breathing. I suspect it is no morethan an error for ijluspwvmena.

a. Gn .f.



Why was the serpent punished when it was the devil who was re-

sponsible for the deception?a

Properly speaking, God inflicted the curse on the one who

brought about the action, who was also called “serpent,” though that

was not the nature he had received from the God of the universe.

For he was created good and made along with the incorporeal pow-

ers. But since he willingly took the path of evil, he forfeited the dig-

nity accorded him in the beginning and was cast down to earth.1

The animal itself also became the object of the curse for the ben-

efit of humanity. When we see the serpent crawling and slithering

on the ground, we remember the original curse and understand the

extent of the evil caused by sin, not only to those who commit it but

also to those who assist them. As it was born to move in this fashion,

the serpent has received no harm from the curse. This is its natural

kind of movement, and there is no burden in a natural characteris-tic. Furthermore, man draws from this a great benefit of his own.

Question

. In his comment on Gn . (hom. . in Gen.), Chrysostom poses the samequestion and responds in similar terms.



Dia; tiv de; to; n o[ fin ejdhmiouvrghsen oJ Qeov", o[rganon aujto; n

proeidw;" th'" ponhriva" ejsovmenon;

Tou'to a[ n ti" ei[poi kai; peri; tou' aj nqrwvpou: prohv /dei ga;r wJ"

kai; aujto;" th; n ej ntolh; n parabhvsetai. a[llw" te rJav /dion h\ n tw' /

diabovlw/ kai; diæ eJtevrou qhrivou th; n ajpavthn prosenegkei' n.

Dia; tiv de; to; n diavbolon ejpoiv hsen, eijdw;" toiou'ton ejsovmenon;

J O Qeo;" pa'san tw' n ajswmavtwn th; n fuvsin ejdhmiouvrghse,

logikh; n aujth; n kai; ajqav naton ajpofhv na": tou' logikou' de; to;

aujtexouvsion i[dion: touvtwn de; oiJ me; n th; n peri; to; n poihth; n ej fuvlaxan eu[ noian, oiJ de; eij" ponhrivan ajpevklinan. tou'to de; kai;

ejpi; tw' n aj nqrwvpwn e[stin euJrei' n: oiJ me; n gavr eijsi th'" ajreth'"

ejrastaiv, oiJ de; th'" kakiva" ejrgavtai.

Eij toiv nun mevmfetaiv ti" th' / tw' n ponhrw' n dhmiourgiva/,

ajposterei' a[ra tw' n th'" nivkh" brabeivwn tou;" th'" ajreth'"

ajqlhtav": eij gavr, mh; ej n th' / aiJrevsei th'" gnwvmh" ei\ con to; n

povqon th'" ajreth'", ajlla; ejmpefuko;" to; a[trepton, e[laqon a] n oiJajxiov nikoi th'" eujsebeiva" ajgwnistaiv. ejpeidh; de; th; n ai{resin tw' n

ajgaqw' n kai; tw' n ej nantivwn e[ cei hJ gnwvmh, dikaivw" kai; ou |toi

tugcav nousi tw' n nikhfovrwn stefav nwn, kajkei' noi divka"

tinnuvousin uJpe;r w | n kata; gnwvmhn ejxhvmarton.


, , B, c, , [ ] = mss.

, , B, c, , [ ] = mss.



Why did God create the serpent when he knew in advance that it

would become an instrument of wickedness?

You could raise the same question about human beings. He knew

in advance that they too would break the commandment. Anyway, it

would have been easy for the devil to accomplish the deception

through some other animal.

Why did God create the devil when he knew what he would be

like?

God created the entirety of incorporeal existence, which he made

rational and immortal. Now, free will is proper to the rational being.

While some maintained their loyalty to the Creator, others fell away into evil. The same is true of human beings: some are lovers of

virtue, others, workers of wickedness.

If you find fault in the creation of the wicked, you also rob the

athletes of virtue of their prize of victory. For had they been natu-

rally changeless, with no passion for virtue when engaged in the ex-

ercise of free will, the victorious champions of goodness would havegone unsung. But since free will exercises a choice between good

and evil, they were rightly awarded the victors’ crowns, while the

others pay the penalty for the sins they committed through their

free will.1

Question

. This question evokes a response, based not on a reference to Scripture, buton a favorite moral principle of the Antiochenes: the necessity of free will for hu-man beings and other rational creatures; cf. Q. . on Dt and note .



jAgaqo; n to; n Qeo; n oj nomavzonte", pw'" aujtw' / periavptete

tosauvthn ajpotomivan; wjmovthto" ga;r kai; ajphniva" to; dia;

brw'sin ojlivghn tosauvthn ejpenegkei' n timwrivan, ouj toi'"

hJmarthkovsi mov non, ajlla; kai; toi'" ejx ejkeiv nwn beblasthkovsi.a

() Prw'ton pepei'sqai proshvkei tou;" eujsebei' n

proairoumev nou" wJ" pa' n oJtiou' n uJpo; tou' Qeou' tw' n o{lwn

ginovmenon h] keleuovmenon kai; o{sion, kai; divkaion, kai; ajgaqov n,

kai; filav nqrwpon: eij ga;r tau'ta pav nta e[ cein aujto; noJmologou'men, kai; ta; uJpæ aujtou' oijkonomouvmenav te kai;

prostattovmena crh; toiau'ta ei\ nai nomivzein. e[peita eijdev nai

dei' wJ" pa'" novmo", ka] n peri; smikrw' n tinwn diagoreuv h/, th; n

i[shn e[ cei duv namin tw' / ta; mevgista keleuvonti poiei' n h]

ajpagoreuvonti dra' n, kai; diaferov ntw" pa'" qei'o" novmo". aujtivka

gou' n oJ peritevmnesqai keleuvwn—oujdemivan parabainovmeno" tw' /

pevla" ejrgavzetai blavbhn, ajllæ o{mw" oJ nomoqevth" fhsi; n o{ti,pa' " ajperivtmhto" a[ rshn, o}" ouj peritmhqhvsetai.......th' / hJ mev ra/ th' /

ojgdovh/, ejxoloqreuqhvsetaib kaiv, h} n w{rise toi'" aj ndrofov noi" kai;

toi'" moicoi'" timwrivan, tauvthn kai; touvtw/ ejklhvrwsen.

∆Epeidh; de; eijko;" tou;" duswnuvmou" aiJretikou;" a[ ntikru" th' /

palaia` / polemou' nta" grafh' / kai; tou'de kathgorh'sai tou' novmou,

ejk th'" eujaggelikh'" nomoqesiva" ta;" ajpodeivxei" poihvsomai:

euJrivskomen ga;r ej n ejkeiv noi" toi'" novmoi" to; n lavgnw" oJrw' ntaguv naion moiceiva" krinovmenon:c kai; to; n eijkh' / ojrgizovmenon,

e[ nocon o[ nta th' / krivsei: to; n de; rJaka; to; n ajdelfo; n oj nomavzonta,

grafh'" pavlin uJpeuvqunon: to; n de; mwro;n ajpokalou' nta, th'"

geev nnh" a[xion:d kai; to; n ojmnuv nta, ka] n ajlhqeuvwn ojmnuv h/, th'"

diabolikh'" o[ nta summoriva".e Tiv dhv pote toiv nun tou'ton me; n


a(inc.), , , B, C, [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .–mmb. Gn .mmc. Mt .mmd. Mt .mme. Mt .mm



How can you call God good and yet attribute so much severity to

him? Only someone harsh and cruel would inflict, for just a little

food, such an awful penalty on both the sinners and their descen-

dants as well.a

() First, those who choose virtue must be convinced that every

single act or command of the God of the universe is holy, just, kind,

and loving. If we confess that he is all these things, we must also be-

lieve that his designs and commands are of the same character.Next, we must acknowledge that every law, even one prescribing

minutiae, has force equal to one requiring performance of, or absti-

nence from, the most important things. This is especially true of

every divine law. For example, in the case of the law prescribing cir-

cumcision, the transgressor does no harm to his neighbor, yet the

Lawgiver says, “Every uncircumcised male who has not been cir-

cumcised on the eighth day will be destroyed.”b

Thus, he assigns thisperson the punishment allotted to murderers and adulterers.

Yet, since the ill-omened heretics who openly dispute the Old

Testament are likely to criticize this law, I shall make my point from

the Gospel legislation. In these laws we find that the man who mere-

ly looks at a woman lustfully is condemned for adultery,

c

the onewho becomes angry without provocation is regarded as guilty of a

crime, the one who speaks contemptuously of his brother is said to

be liable to prosecution, while the one who calls him a fool is con-

demned to hell,d and he who swears, even if swearing the truth, is

relegated to the devil.1e So why do they call this Lawgiver good, but

Question

. Throughout this response Theodoret counters pejorative attitudes toward

the ethical teaching of the Old Testament; this is a task he had foreseen in the pref-ace. He argues that both OT and NT teachings are from God, though the latter aremore developed.



ajgaqo; n oj nomavzousin, ajphnh' de; to; n th'" palaia'" nomoqevthn;

tau'ta ga;r ejkeiv nwn kata; to; n touvtwn o{ron wjmovtera. ajlla; th'"

ejkeiv nwn tau'ta blasfhmiva" tolma' n: hJmei'" de; kajkeiv nou" kai;

touvtou" tou;" novmou" eJ no;" i[smen Qeou'. to; de; diav foron hJ tw' n nomoqetoumev nwn poiovth" eijrgavsato: oi |a ga;r sofo;"

didavskalo", toi'" me; n ajtelevsi ta; ajtelh', toi'" de; teleivoi" ta;

tevleia prosenhv noce.f

() Pro;" de; touvtoi" skophtevon kai; tou'to, wJ" toi'" prwvtoi"

parabaiv nousi tou;" novmou" ejpifevrontai div ca suggnwvmh"

timwrivai w{ste tou;" a[llou", oJrw' nta" th; n kovlasin, mh; tolma' n

th; n paravbasin. tou'to kai; ejpi; th'" tou' sabbavtou nomoqesiva" ejgev neto: to; n ga;r ej n sabbavtw/ ta; xuvla sullevxai tetolmhkovta

kai; prw'ton to; n peri; touvtou parabebhkovta novmon a{pa"

katevleusen oJ laov", tou' Qeou' tou'to prostetacovto", i{ na,

aujtourgoi; th'" timwriva" genovmenoi, frivttwsi th; n paranomivan,

wJ" th; n timwrivan ejpavgousan.g crov nw/ de; u{steron, pollw' n to; n

peri; tou' sabbavtou parabebhkovtwn novmon, makroquvmw" oJ

nomoqevth" h[ negke th; n paravbasin. ou{tw to; n Kavi> n prw'ton

pefoneukovta tai'" aj nhkevstoi" uJpevbale timwrivai" i{ na tou;" ejpæ

ejkeiv nou kai; metæ ejkei' non gegenhmev nou" dedivxhtai ta;

paraplhvsia mh; tolma' n.h pollw' n de; u{steron aj ndrofov nwn

gegenhmev nwn, ouj parautivka ta;" timwriva" ejphvgagen.

[Edei toiv nun kai; to; n ∆Ada;m prw'ton dexavmenon novmon kai;

novmon koufovtaton: tw' n pantodapw' n ga;r aujtw' / karpw' n

ejdedwvkei th; n aj fqonivan, eJ no;" de; mov nou th; n ejdwdh; n

ajphgoreuvkei:i dou' nai divkhn tou' plhmmelhvmato" eij" wj fevleiantou' gev nou". | eij de; dusovrghto" w[ n, wJ" oJ duswv numo" e[ fh

Markivwn, dia; brw'sin ojlivghn th; n tou' qanavtou timwrivan

ejphv negke, pw'" aJpav ntwn aj nqrwvpwn eij" ajsevbeian kai;

paranomivan ejscavthn ejxokeilav ntwn, ouj panwleqrivan ejphv negken,

ajlla; to; n uiJo; n e[dwken kai; th; n dia; staurou' kai; pavqou"

ejdwrhvsato swthrivan;


|2a

f. Cor .f.mmg. Nm .–mmh. Gn .–mmi. Gn .f.mm



the giver of the old law harsh, when the penalties of the new law, by

their own reckoning, are more severe than those of the old? Their

temerity is a form of blasphemy. But we are aware that both the old

law and the new come from the one God. The difference lies in thecharacter of those who receive the law. A wise teacher, after all, pro-

poses less developed teaching to immature people and more devel-

oped to the mature.f

() Furthermore, we should consider that punishment is inflicted

without mitigation on those who are the first to transgress, so that,

on seeing the punishment, others will not dare the same. This hap-

pened in the case of the Sabbath. The people as a whole stoned theman who was the first to break the law by presuming to collect

wood on the Sabbath. God gave this command so that, after them-

selves exacting the punishment, they would fear transgression for

the punishment it entailed.g Later, however, when many people had

broken the law about the Sabbath, the Lawgiver in his long-suffering

put up with the transgression. Similarly, he inflicted an irremediable

punishment on Cain, the first murderer, so as to render his contem-

poraries and descendants fearful of committing similar crimes.h But

later, after the commission of many other murders, he did not inflict

an immediate punishment.

Therefore, Adam also had to pay the penalty for his sin for the

benefit of the race.2 He had received the first law, and a very light

one at that. While he was regaled with an abundance of fruits of all

kinds, the eating of one alone was forbidden. i But if an ill-temperedcreator inflicted the punishment of death for just a little food, as the

ill-omened Marcion claims, how is it that, with all humanity rush-

ing headlong into the worst wickedness and sin, he did not inflict

universal ruin but gave his Son and bestowed the gift of salvation

through cross and passion?

Question

. Theodoret never speaks of original sin or the transmission to posterity of the

guilt for Adam’s sin (cf. also Q. ). He deplores the Fall as an event that resulted indeath for the human race but rejoices in the divine plan (oijkonomiva~ musthvrion),which, through the sacrifice of Christ, reverses death through resurrection.



Furthermore, to those who, in their ignorance of the mystery of

the divine plan, hold that the God of the universe acted in a burst of

anger, I submit the following. I believe it is clear to anyone versed in

religion that God does nothing on the basis of second thoughts.This weakness is typical of those with a changeable nature, opting at

one time for this, at another for that, and completely ignorant of the

future. The God of the universe, by contrast, is unchangeable by na-

ture and knows what has yet to happen as though it had already

happened. For example, because he foresaw Adam’s behavior and

foreknew that he would break the commandment and become li-

able to death, he prepared in advance this physical constitution; thatis, he arranged their bodily make-up as male and female. j Their

bodies were so constituted in view of their being mortal and requir-

ing procreation for the continuance of the race, since an immortal

nature does not require the female. Thus, the Creator produced all

at once the complete number of the beings that have no body but

made each race of mortal beings in couples, male and female, and

bestowed on them the blessing of increase: “Increase and multiply.”k

Thus he created humanity both male and female and gave them the

blessing: “Increase, multiply, fill the earth and dominate it.”l The

God of the universe exhibited his foresight not only in the creation

of humanity as male and female, but also in giving them the law

about their food: “Lo, I have given you every plant upon all the earth

bearing seed fit for sowing and every tree containing fruit with seed

fit for sowing; these will be your food and the food of all the beasts

of the earth, all the birds of heaven, and every reptile creeping onthe earth, which has the spirit of life in it. I have given you every

green plant for food.”3m Now, the God of the universe said this to

Question

. It is difficult to know just how Theodoret would have divided the clauses of this quotation. The appearance here of the phrase uJmi` n devdwka (I have given you)seems to necessitate the introduction of a stop after zwh~ and the beginning of anew sentence with kai;. Yet, as the critical note indicates, several manuscripts omit

the pronoun uJmi` n. Furthermore, when Theodoret once more quotes this passagein Q. , both pronoun and verb are omitted, and we must regard everything frombrwsin to zwh~ as a parenthesis and construe kai; pav nta covrton as direct object



to; n ∆Ada;m oJ tw' n o{lwn e[ fh Qeov": qnhtw' n de; hJ brw'si":

ajqav nato" ga;r fuvsi" ouj dei'tai trofh'". kai; tou'to didavskwn, oJ

Kuvrio" e[ fh o{ti, meta; th; n aj navstasin ou[te gamou' sin, ou[te

gamivskontai, ajllæ eijsi;n wJ" a[ggeloi ejn toi' " ouj ranoi' ".n

() Ouj toiv nun ojrgh'" hJ timwriva, ajllæ oijkonomiva sofiva"

megivsth". i{ na ga;r mish' / th; n aJmartivan tw' n aj nqrwvpwn to; gev no",

wJ" aijtivan qanavtou gegenhmev nhn, meta; th; n paravbasin th'"

ej ntolh'" ejpifevrei tou' qanavtou th; n yh' fon oJ pav nsofo": touvtw/

me; n to; peri; th; n aJmartivan mhcanwvmeno" mi'so", proeutrepivzwn

de; tw' / gev nei th'" swthriva" to; favrmakon, to; dia; th'" tou'monogenou'" ej nanqrwphvsew" th; n ejk nekrw' n aj navstasin kai; th; n

ajqanasivan pragmateusavmenon. tiv de; ajphne;" hJ ajpov fasi" e[ cei,

gh' ei\ kai; eij" gh' n ajpeleuvsh/;o ajpo; gh'" se, fhsiv n, e[plasa kai;

eij" ajmeiv nw pollw' / meteskeuvasa fuvsin: ejpeidh; de; fulavxai mou

th; n ej ntolh; n oujk ejqevlhsa", pro;" th; n protevran ejpav nelqe

fuvsin.

jAnqæ o{tou de; smikro; n ei\ nai dokei' to; aJmavrthma; pav ntwn

aujtw' / tw' n futw' n ejdedwvkei th; n ejxousivan, eJ no;" de; mov nou th; n

ejdwdh; n ajphgoreuvkei. oJ dev, ta; a[lla pav nta katalipwv n, tou'ton

kai; prw'ton kai; mov non ejtruvghse to; n karpov n: tou'to ga;r aujtw' /

kai; oJ despovth" Qeo;" ejmevmyato: tiv", gavr fhsin, ajnhvggeilev

soi o{ti gumno;" ei\ eij mh; ajpo; tou' xuvlou, ou | ejneteilav mhn soi

touvtou movnou mh; fagei' n, ajpæ aujtou' e[fage" ; p dedhvlwke de;

tou'to kai; oJ diavbolo" diæ w | n e[ fh th' / Eu[a/: tiv o{ti ei\ pen oJ Qeov",

ouj mh; favghte ajpo; panto;" xuvlou, tou' ejn tw' / paradeivsw/; q eij de; ei\den ejdhdokovta", oujk a] n wj / hvqh peri; pav ntwn aujtou;" tw' n

dev ndrwn eijlhfev nai th; n ej ntolhv n. ouj smikra; toigarou' n hJ

paravbasi": prwvtou ga;r metevlabon ou | mov nou mh; metascei' n

ejkeleuvsqhsan.


n. Mt .mmo. Gn .mmp. Gn .mmq. Gn .



Adam before the commandment, and food is for mortals; beings

naturally immortal have no need of food. The Lord also taught this

when he said, “After the resurrection they neither marry nor are giv-

en in marriage but are like angels in heaven.”n

() Thus the punishment is not the result of anger, but part of a

divine plan of the greatest wisdom. So that the human race would

hate sin as the cause of death, after the transgression of the com-

mandment, God, in his great wisdom, passed the sentence of death

and in this way both ensured their hatred of sin and provided the

race with the remedy of salvation, which, through the Incarnationof the Only-begotten, achieves the resurrection of the dead and im-

mortality. What is the harshness in the sentence, “Earth you are, and

to earth you will return”?o He is saying, “I formed you out of earth

and transformed you to a far better condition, but since you were

not prepared to keep my commandment, return to your former

condition.”

Surely the sin does not seem slight? He gave him authority over

all the plants and forbade him to eat just one. But Adam, passing

over all the others, sank his teeth into this fruit first and into this

one alone. The Lord God held him accountable for this: “Who told

you that you were naked, unless you have eaten from the only tree I

commanded you not to eat?”p This is clear also from what the devil

said to Eve: “Why did God tell you not to eat from every tree in the

garden?”q Had he known that they had already eaten, he would not

have imagined that the commandment enjoined on them applied toall the trees. Thus, the transgression was not slight; they ate first of

that one thing of which they were forbidden to partake.

Question

of devdwka, the second word of the quotation. In either case, man and animals aregrouped together. Here, if we should omit the difficult pronoun, the passage wouldfirst devote two independent clauses to man’s nourishment and then a third to thatof the beasts: “Lo, I have given you every plant upon all the earth bearing seed fitfor sowing and every tree containing fruit with seed fit for sowing; these will be

your food. And to all the beasts of the earth, all the birds of heaven, and every rep-tile creeping on the earth, which has the spirit of life in it, I have given every greenplant for food.”



Tiv no" e{ neka tou' Qeou' eijrhkovto", h | / dæ a]n hJ mev ra/ favgh/ ajpo;

tou' xuvlou, qanavtw/ ajpoqanh' /,a oujk eujqu;" ajpevqane, th; n ej ntolh; n

parabav";

jEnantiva au{th kathgoriva: pro; bracevo" ga;r ajphnh' to; n

Qeo; n|| ajpokalou' nte", nu' n aujtou' filanqrwpivan kathgorei'te.

uJmnei' n de; ma'llon ej crh' n ajllæ ouj kathgorei' n th'" ajgaqovthto"

tou' Qeou': ei[wqe ga;r meivzona me; n ajpeilei' n, ejlavttou" de; tw' n

ajpeilw' n ta;" timwriva" ejpavgein, kai; tou'to pollach' / e[stin euJrei' n para; th' / qeiva/ grafh' /. ej ntau'qa mev ntoi to; n th'"

qnhtovthto" o{ron wj novmase qavnaton: ou{tw ga;r kai; oJ Suvmmaco"

hJrmhv neusen: h | / dæ a]n hJ mev ra/ favgh/ ajpo; tou' xuvlou, qnhto;" e[sh/:

meta; ga;r dh; th; n qeivan ajpov fasin kaqæ eJkavsthn, wJ" e[po"

eijpei' n, hJmevran to; n qav naton prosedev ceto. ou{tw" oiJ

pepisteukovte" tw' / despovth/ Cristw' /, kai; sfattovmenoi, zw'si,

prosmev nonte" th; n aj navstasin kai; th; n tw' n oujranw' n basileivan:th' / ga; r ejlpivdi ejswvqhmen.b

Tou;" citw' na" tou;" dermativ nou" tiv nohtevon;a

OiJ me; n ajllhgorhtai; th; n qnhth; n savrka fasi; ta; devrmata,

a[lloi dev tine" ajpo; floiw' n dev ndrwn touvtou" kateskeua'sqai

eijrhvkasin. ejgw; dev ge oujdevteron touvtwn prosiv emai: to; me; n ga;r

periv ergon, to; de; a[gan muqw'de": th'" ga;r qeiva" grafh'" kai;


||2a

a(inc.), , , B, C –50 , [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .mmb. Rom .

, , B, C, [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .



Why was it that though God had said, “The day you eat from the

tree you will certainly die,”a Adam did not immediately die on

breaking the commandment?

This charge is the exact opposite of the former. Just a moment

ago you accused God of harshness, now you charge him with mercy.

Instead of criticizing God’s goodness, you should sing his praises. It

is usually the case that his threats are more severe than the punish-

ments he actually inflicts, as you can find in many places in holy Scripture. In this case, however, by “death” he referred to the sen-

tence of mortality. Hence, Symmachus translated, “On the day you

eat from the tree you will be mortal.”1 After the divine sentence, they

had, so to speak, death to look forward to each day. Similarly, those

who believe in Christ the Lord, even if put to death, live in the ex-

pectation of the resurrection and the Kingdom of Heaven, “for we

were saved in hope.”b

How are we to understand the clothing of skins?a

Allegorizing commentators have claimed that the skins were

mortal flesh, others that they were made from the bark of trees.1 But

I adopt neither of these views; the latter is merely inquisitive, the

Question

. In this work, perhaps because of the question and answer format, Theodoretmakes relatively few references to Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, the threewho were traditionally credited with editing Greek versions substantially differentfrom that attributed to the seventy; v. sec. of the “Introduction to Theodoret’ sLife and Works.”

. This detail (Gn .) has excited the interest of both ancients and moderns.As Guinot points out (pp. f.), Theodoret rejects first the Alexandrian allegorical



pro; th'" yuch'" to; sw'ma diapepla'sqai fhsavsh", pw'" ouj

muqw'de" to; levgein meta; th; n paravbasin th'" ej ntolh'" savrka

aujtou;" eijlhfev nai qnhthv n; to; dev ge polupragmonei' n povqen tw' /

Qew' / devrmata kai; dia; tou'to kaino; n ei\do" peribolaivwn ejpinoei' nperitto; n ei\ naiv moi dokei'. crh; toiv nun stevrgein ta; gegrammev na,

kai; eijdev nai wJ" oujde; n a[poron tw' / tw' n o{lwn dhmiourgw' /, kai;

qaumavzein aujtou' th; n a[peiron ajgaqovthta, o{ti kai;

parabebhkovtwn ejpimelei'tai kai; dehqev ntwn peribolaivwn ouj

periei'de gumnouv".

Tiv ejsti to; ijdou; gevgonen ∆Ada; m wJ" ei |" ejx hJ mw' n ; a

jEpeidh; oJ diavbolo" ei\pen, e[sesqe wJ" qeoi; ginwvskonte"

kalo;n kai; ponhrovn,b ejdevxato de; tou' qanavtou to; n o{ron, th; n

ej ntolh; n parabav", eijrwnikw'" tou'to ei[rhken oJ tw' n o{lwn Qeov",

deiknu;" th'" diabolikh'" ejpaggeliva" to; yeu'do". metalabei' n de;

aujto; n tou' karpou' tou' xuvlou th'" zwh'" diekwvlusen, ouj fqonw' n

aujtw' / th'" ajqanavtou zwh'", ajlla; th'" aJmartiva" ejpev cwn to; n

drovmon. ijatreiva toiv nun oJ qav nato", ouj timwriva: ejpev cei ga;r th'"


, , B, C, [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .mmb. Gn .mm



former too much of a mythological fable. Since holy Scripture says

that the body was formed even before the soul, how can this claim

that the man and woman took mortal flesh only after the transgres-

sion of the commandment amount to anything but a fable? And itstrikes me as futile to pry into the way God came by skins and to

imagine a novel form of clothing. We should be content with the

text, acknowledge that there is no task beyond the Creator of the

universe, and admire the unlimited goodness of God who, taking

care for sinners, did not overlook their need for clothing when they

were naked.2

What is the meaning of the verse “Lo, Adam has become like one

of us?”a

Though the devil had declared, “You will be like gods, knowing

good and evil,”b Adam incurred the sentence of death for breaking

the commandment. So the God of the universe said this ironically to

bring out the lie in the devil’s promise.1 Now, God had forbidden

Adam to partake of the fruit of the tree of life, not because he be-

grudged him eternal life, but to check the course of sin. Indeed,

death is healing, not punishment, for it checks the onset of sin: “He

Question

interpretation (v. Or., Sel. in Gen. ; Didym., In Gen. ) and then the ingenioussuggestion of Theodore of Mopsuestia ( fragg. in Gen. on . LXX = . MT).

. In his expression of admiration for the kindliness of providence Theodoretagrees with Diodore (Deconinck, frag. ). Similarly, von Rad remarks (on .):“[I]t is an act of marked significance. For the first time we see the Creator as thepreserver!”

. Theodoret’s questioner rightly notes that Gn . seems to affirm the devil’spromise in v. . The modern commentator Speiser suggests (pp. f.) that the bib-lical author may have derived, either directly or indirectly, the notion of wisdom

rivalling that of the gods from a passage of the Gilgamesh Epic but concludes thatwe have no “way of knowing how the [Hebrew] author himself interpreted thesenotions.”



aJmartiva" th; n oJrmhv n: oJ ga; r ajpoqanwvn, fhsiv, dedikaivwtai ajpo;

th' " aJ martiva".c katantikru; de; aujto; n tou' paradeivsou diavgein

prosevtaxen i{ na, th'" ajluvpou bioth'" eij" mnhvmhn ejrcovmeno",

mish' / th; n aJmartivan wJ" provxenon th'" ejpipov nou zwh'".

Eij ejluphvqh oJ Kavi> n, mh; decqev ntwn tw' n paræ aujtou'

prosenecqev ntwn, dh'lon o{ti metemelhvqh: tw' n ga;r

metameloumev nwn hJ luvph.a

jHnivasen aujtov n, ouj c hJ aujtou' plhmmevleia, ajllæ hJ tou'

ajdelfou' eujpraxiva. tou'to ga;r kai; oJ ∆Akuvla" hj / nivxato: e[ fh de;

ou{tw": kai; oj rgivlon tw' / Kavi>n sfovdra, kai; e[pese to; provswpon

aujtou' . kai; ei\ pe Kuv rio" pro;" Kavi>n, eij" tiv oj rgivlon soi; b

Poi'on shmei'on e[qeto tw' / Kavi> n oJ Qeov";a

Aujto;" oJ tou' Qeou' o{ro" shmei'on h\ n, kwluvwn aujto; n

aj naireqh' nai. kai; aujto;" de; tw' n melw' n oJ klov no" ejpivshmon aujto; n

kai; dh'lon eijrgavzeto.


c. Rom .

, , B, C, [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .mmb. Gn .f. (LXX var.)m

, , B, C –52 , [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .

m



ajpevkteina eij" trau' ma ej moi; kai; neanivskon eij" mwvlwpa ej moiv,b

toutevstin, a[ ndra nevan a[gonta th; n hJlikivan. diev fuge mev ntoi

th; n timwrivan dia; th; n th'" aJmartiva" oJmologivan kaiv, kaqæ

eJautou' th; n yh' fon ejxenegkwv n, th; n qeivan diekwvluse yh' fon.

Pou' metatevqeike to; n ∆Enw; c oJ tw' n o{lwn Qeov";a

Ouj dei' zhtei' n ta; sesighmev na, stevrgein de; proshvkei ta;

gegrammev na. ejgw; de; oi\mai tou'to pepoihkev nai to; n tw' n o{lwnQeo; n eij" yucagwgivan tw' n th'" ajreth'" ajqlhtw' n. ejpeidh; ga;r o

[Abel, prw'to" gegonw;" th'" dikaiosuv nh" karpov", provwrov" te

kai; provrrizo" ejxekovph,b ejlpi;" de; th'" aj nastavsew" oujdevpw

tou;" aj nqrwvpou" ej yucagwvgei, metevqhken eujaresthvsanta to; n

∆Enw; c oJ tw' n o{lwn Qeo;"c kai; th'" tw' n qnhtw' n ej cwvrise bioth'"

i{ na e{kasto" tw' n eujsebei' n proairoumev nwn logivzhtai, oi |a dh;


b. Gn .

, , B, C, [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .mmb. Gn .mmc. Gn .,



lovgw/ tetimhmev no", wJ" oJ tou'ton tetimhkw;" ajgevraston oujk

ejavsei to; n [Abel, a{te dh; divkaio" w] n kai; dikaivw" ijquv nwn ta;

suvmpanta. touvtou dh; cavrin, to; n me; n parei'den aj nairouvmenon,

to; n de; metatevqeiken i{ na th' / aj narrhvsei th' / touvtou mhnuvsh/ th; n ejsomev nhn aj navstasin: oJ ga;r kata; tov nde to; n bivon tw' n th'"

ajreth'" mh; tetuchkw;" aj ntidovsewn, dh'lon wJ" ej n eJtevrw/ touvtwn

ajpolauvsetai bivw/.

Tiv dhv pote, tou' ∆Ada;m hJmarthkovto", [Abel oJ divkaio"

ejteleuvthse prw'to";a

Saqro; n hjboulhvqh genevsqai to; n tou' qanavtou qemevlion. eij

ga;r ∆Ada;m provtero" ejteleuvthsen, e[scen a] n ejkei' no" ijscura; n

th; n krhpi'da, prw'ton nekro; n to; n hJmarthkovta dexavmeno".

ejpeidh; de; to; n ajdivkw" aj nh/rhmev non ejdevxato prw'ton, sfalero; n

to; qemevlion e[ cei.

Tiv na" uiJou;" tou' Qeou' kevklhken oJ Mwu>sh'";a

() ∆Embrov nthtoiv tine" kai; a[gan hjlivqioi ajggevlou" touvtou"

uJpevlabon, th'" oijkeiva" i[sw" ajkolasiva" ajpologivan schvsein hJgouvmenoi eij tw' n ajggevlwn toiau'ta kathgoroi' en. e[dei de;

aujtou;" ajkou'sai tou' Qeou' tw' n o{lwn levgonto", ouj mh;

katameivnh/ to; pneu' mav mou ejn toi' " ajnqrwvpoi" touvtoi" eij" to;n


, B, C, [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .

, , B, C, [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .mm



virtue might be able to use his inborn reason to deduce that after

honoring this man, God, both righteous and governing everything

righteously, would not let Abel go without a reward. Therefore,

though he had permitted the murder of Abel, he took Enoch to an-other place so that, by the message proclaimed regarding the latter,

he might suggest the resurrection that was to come. For it is obvious

that anyone who fails to receive a reward for virtue in this life will

enjoy it in the next.

Why was it that, though Adam sinned, the righteous Abel was the

first to die?a

God wanted Death’s foundation to be unsound. If Adam had

been the first to die, Death would have established a strong base by

taking the sinner as his first victim. But since he first took the man

unjustly slain, his foundation is insecure.

Whom did Moses call the “sons of God”?a

() Some mad fools have assumed they were angels, perhaps in

the belief that they might have some excuse for their own intemper-ate behavior if they could level such charges against angels. But, they

should have given due attention to the words of the God of the uni-

verse—“My spirit shall not abide in these men forever, for they are

Question

tion. Von Rad (on .–) agrees with Theodoret in seeing a hint here at “other-worldly spheres of existence.”



flesh; their life-span will be one hundred and twenty years”b—and

reflected that incorporeal beings have no flesh, and that, as they

were created immortal, their lives are not limited to a set span. The

following words also prove this: “The Lord God saw that the evildeeds of men were multiplied on earth, and everyone’s thoughts in

his heart were focused on evil his whole life long, and God regretted

that he had made man on earth. God said, I shall wipe out the man

that I made from the face of the earth, and cattle as well as men, and

serpents, and birds of heaven as well, because I regret that I made

them.”c And to Noah he said, “The time of every man has come be-

fore me, because it is their fault that the land is filled with iniquity.Lo, I am destroying them and the earth as well.”1d

Now, all this points to human beings and to those who were fond

of a lawless life. If the angels had had relations with the daughters of

man, humans would have been wronged by the angels, since, of

course, the angels would have raped their daughters. Furthermore,

they would have been wronged by God the Creator who punished

them for the lascivious behavior of the angels. I do not believe that

even the father of falsehood would dare to make any such claim.e

After all, it is the consistent teaching of Scripture that men are sin-

ners and men the recipients of the divine condemnation.

() Yet careless reading of holy Scripture is the cause of error

among ordinary people. For after saying that Seth was born of Adam,f and Enosh of Seth, the historian added, “He hoped to be

called the name of the Lord God.”g Now, Aquila renders this: “That

was the time when a beginning was made of calling on the name of

the Lord,” but this verse expresses in riddling form the idea that,

Question

. Like Chrysostom, Theodoret rejects the Alexandrian interpretation equating“the sons of God” with angels; v. Didym., in Gen. f. and cf. Guinot, p. . In

fact, he seems to build his own interpretation on the foundation of the strong an-tithesis that Chrysostom had drawn (hom. .) between the family of Cain (=“the sons of man”) and that of Seth (= “the sons of God”).



touvtou fuv nte" uiJoi; Qeou' ej crhmavtizon w{sper dh; kai; hJmei'" ejk

th'" tou' despovtou Cristou' proshgoriva" cristianoi;

kalouvmeqa.

Eij dev ti" tauvthn ouj dev cetai th; n diav noian dia; to; to; n

∆Akuvlan ou{tw" hJrmhneukev nai, ajkousavtw tou' Qeou' dia; Dabi;d

tou' profhvtou levgonto", ejgw; ei\ pa, qeoiv ejste, kai; uiJoi;

ÔUyivstou pavnte":h kaiv, oJ Qeo;" e[sth ejn sunagwgh' / qew' n, ejn

mevsw/ de; qeou;" diakrinei' .i ou{tw de; oj nomavzei tou;" a[rconta", wJ"

dhloi' ta; eJxh'": e{w" povte krivnete ajdikivan kai; provswpa

aJ martwlw' n lambavnete ;.......krivnate oj rfanw' / kai; ptwcw' /,tapeino;n kai; pevnhta dikaiwvsate, kai; ta; eJxh'": j kai; au\qi",

Qeo;" qew' n Kuv rio" ejlavlhse kai; ejkavlese th;n gh' n,k touvtwn

aujtw' n, dhlonovti, tw' n cavriti th'" proshgoriva" tauvth"

hjxiwmev nwn: ou{tw kai; oJ nomoqevth" e[ fh, qeou;" ouj kakologhvsei"

kai; a[ rconta" tou' laou' sou oujk ej rei' " kakw' ".l

() Kajkei' noi toiv nun, wJ" eujsebei'", wj nomavsqhsan uiJoi; tou'

Qeou' : kecwvristo ga;r tou' Sh;q to; gev no" kai; oujk ejpemivgnuto

toi'" ejk tou' Kavi> n dia; th; n ejpenecqei'san aujtw' / para; tou' Qeou'

tw' n o{lwn ajrav n. ajlla; crov nou sucnou' dielqov nto": meta; pleivona

ga;r h] discivlia e[th to; n kataklusmo; n ejphvgagen oJ Qeov":m

euj eidei'" qeasavmenoi th'" tou' Kavi> n suggeneiva" ta;" qugatevra"

kai; kataqelcqev nte", wJ" eijkov", toi'" paræ aujtw' n ejpinohqei'si

mousikoi'" ojrgav noi": oJ ga;r ∆Iouba;l ejx aujtw' n aj nqhvsa"

yalthvrion kai; kiqavran katevdeixen:n ejpemivghsan aujtai'" kai;

diev fqeiran th; n oijkeivan eujgev neian. kai; ta; aujta; toi'"ijsrahlivtai" uJpevmeinan, oi{, tai'" tw' n madianitw' n qugatravsi

migev nte", kai; th'" ejkeiv nwn dussebeiva" metevscon kai; qehvlaton


h. Ps .mmi. Ps .mm j. Ps .f.mmk. Ps .mml. Ex .mmm. Gn .mmn. Gn .mm



thanks to his virtue, this man was the first to hit upon the divine

name and was called “God” by his kindred. Hence, his offspring

were styled “sons of God,” just as we are called “Christians” from the

Lord’s title “Christ”.2

If you do not accept this interpretation on account of Aquila’s

version, listen to God speaking through the prophet David: “I said,

You are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High”;h and “God has

taken his place in an assembly of gods; in their midst, he will judge

gods.”i This is the title he gives to rulers, as indicated by what fol-

lows: “How long will you deliver unjust judgments and take the part

of sinners? Judge in favor of orphan and poor, give justice to thelowly and needy” and so on; j and again, “The Lord God of gods

spoke and summoned the earth,”k that is, the Lord God of those

who had been accorded this title. Hence, the lawgiver said, “You

shall not revile gods or malign rulers of your people.”l

() Thus, those ancient men were called “sons of God” because of

their virtue. Indeed, the family of Seth lived apart and did not min-

gle with Cain’s family because of the curse laid on him by the God of

the universe. But after the passage of a long period of time (it was

more than two thousand years later that God brought on the

flood),m they found the daughters of Cain’s line comely, and, per-

haps attracted by the musical instruments they had invented (Jubal,

one of their race, introduced the harp and lyre),3n the descendants of

Seth intermarried with them and contaminated their own lineage.

Thus, they suffered the same fate as the Israelites who had relationswith the daughters of the Midianites, participated in their idolatry,

Question

. Theodoret’s identification of the sons of God rests on two errors: a mistrans-lation presented by his Bible and his own mistaken understanding of the LXX. In. the LXX, confusing two similar Hebrew forms, wrongly renders as “hoped”( h[lpisen) a verb actually meaning “to begin.” Theodoret compounds the confu-sion by interpreting the following ejpikalei`sqai as a passive meaning “to be

called” or “to be surnamed” rather than a middle meaning “to call upon” or “in-voke.”. Theodoret regards the separate genealogies of chh. and as indicating the



timwrivan ejdevxanto.o peri; touvtwn kai; oJ qei'o" e[ fh Dabivd, kai;

ej mivghsan ejn toi' " e[qnesi, kai; e[ maqon ta; e[ rga aujtw' n, kai;

ejdouvleusan toi' " gluptoi' " aujtw' n.p ou{tw" oiJ ejk tou' Sh;q to;

gev no" katavgonte" pavlai mev n, wJ" ajreth'" ejpimelouvmenoi, uiJoi;Qeou' ej crhmavtizon: uJpo; de; th'" w{ra" tw' n aj nosivwn gunaikw' n

deleasqev nte", sunev cean me; n diakekrimev na ta; gev nh, karpo; n de;

klhronomiva" th; n panwleqrivan ejdevxanto.

jEkei' no mev ntoi ejpishmhv nasqai crhv, wJ", ouj c aJplw'" aujtw' n

aJmartivan oJ qei'o" lovgo" kathgorei', ajlla; th; n metæ ejpimeleiva"

kai; spoudh'" paranomivan. tou'to ga;r dhloi' to; pa' " ti"

dianoei' tai ejn th' / kardiva/ aujtou' ejpimelw' " ejpi; ta; ponhra; pavsa" ta;" hJ mev ra".q oiJ me; n ga;r dusceraiv nonte" th'" aJmartiva" th; n

prosbolhv n, hJttwvmenoi de; dia; th; n tou' nou' rJaqumivan th' /

ponhriva/, ei\qæ u{steron ajlgou' nte" kai; stev nonte", e[ cousiv tina

metrivan aJmh' gev ph/ paraivthsin: oiJ de; eij" ajkolasivan kai;

ponhrivan pantavpasin ajpokliv nonte" kai; dou'lon tw' n paqw' n to; n

logismo; n ajpofaiv nonte" w{ste kai; prosepinoei' n eJtevra" kakiva"

ijdeva" kai; tou'to, ouj c a{pax h] div", ajlla; para; pav nta to; n bivon,

poiva" a[xioi suggnwvmh"; poiva de; kovlasi" ouj smikra; toi'" ou{tw

sfa'" aujtou;" ejkdedwkovsin eij" o[leqron;

Tiv na" kalei' givganta" hJ qeiva grafhv;a

Tinev" fasi tou;" e[th polla; bebiwkovta", tine;" de; tou;"qeomisei'" kai; aj ntiqevou" aj nqrwvpou". oiJ de; tau'ta ou{tw

nenohkovte" ou[ fasi touvtou" meivzona tw' n a[llwn aj nqrwvpwn

swvmata ejschkev nai. ejgw; de; o{tan ajkouvsw th'" qeiva" grafh'"


o. Nm .–mmp. Ps .f.mmq. Gn .mm

, , B, C, (inc.) [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .m



and received retribution from heaven.o The divinely inspired David

said of them: “They mingled with the nations, learned their prac-

tices, and served their idols.”p Likewise the descendants of Seth,

though formerly attentive to virtue and styled “sons of God,” wereseduced by the charm of the unholy women, mingled races once

kept apart, and thus inherited utter ruin.

Of course, we should observe that the divine word blames not

simply their sin but the wholehearted zeal of their lawlessness. That

is the meaning of “Everyone’s thoughts in his heart were focused on

evil his whole life long.”q

Some people, though disgusted at the firstattack of sin, make no serious effort to oppose it and are overcome

by wickedness but later evince profound grief. These have some

slight excuse. But others, who are wholeheartedly inclined to intem-

perance and vice, and whose mind is so enslaved to passion as to ex-

cogitate new forms of wickedness, not once or twice, but all their

life—what pardon do they deserve? What punishment could possi-

bly be severe enough for people who have surrendered themselves

to ruination?

Whom does holy Scripture call “giants”?a

Some commentators have claimed that the giants were peoplewho lived to a great age; others that they were people who hated and

opposed God. Those who hold these opinions deny that they were

bigger than other people. But I am persuaded that there were men

Question

separation of the races of Seth and Cain. In fact, as R.J. Clifford and R.E. Murphy point out (p. ) the two lists, deriving from different strands of tradition, actually contain the same names or variants of the same name:“Cain/Kenan; Enoch/ Enoch;

Irad/Jared; Mehuyael/Mahalalel; Methushael/Methusalah; Lamech/ Lamech.” Thereader will note that in .– the LXX’s calculations of the ages of the patriarchs areoften at variance with those of the MT.



legouvsh" peri; tou' ∆Enavk, o{ti ajpovgono" h\ n tw' n gigav ntwn:b kai;

peri; tou' ]Wg o{ti, hJ klivnh aujtou' h\ n sidhra' .......ejnneva phv cewn

to; mh' ko" ......., kai; tessav rwn phv cewn to; eu\ ro" kai; o{ti ou |to" ejk

tw' n rJafai; >n uJpeleivfqh:c kai; tw' n kataskovpwn dihgoumev nwn o{ti,h\ men ejnwvpion aujtw' n wJsei; ajkrivde":d kai; tou' Qeou' bebaiou' nto"

tou;" lovgou" kai; levgonto" o{ti, paradevdwkav soi to; n ajmorrai'on,

ou | to; u{ yo" h\ n wJ" kevdrou, kai; ijscuro;" h\ n wJ" dru' ":e kai; peri;

tou' Golia;d o{ti, tessav rwn phv cewn kai; spiqamh' " to; mh'ko"

ei\ cen,f hJgou'mai gegenh'sqai tina;" pammegevqei" aj nqrwvpou", tou'

Qeou' kai; tou'to sofw'" prutaneuvsanto" i{ na gnw'sin wJ", oujk

ajsqenw' n, oJ dhmiourgo;" tosou'ton toi'" aj nqrwvpoi" ajpev neimemevtron: rJav /dion ga;r h\ n aujtw' / kai; meivzou" dhmiourgh'sai: ajlla;

to; n tu` fon ejkkovptwn kai; th; n ajlazoneivan kwluvwn, mevgista toi'"

aj nqrwvpoi" oujk e[dwke swvmata. eij ga;r ej n smikroi'" swvmasin,

ou j katæ ajllhvlwn mov non, ajlla; kai; katæ aujtou' megalaucou'si tou'

poihtou', tiv oujk a] n e[drasan eij megivstwn swmavtwn metevlacon;

Dia; tiv polu; n crov non e[zwn oiJ palaioiv;a

{Wste aujxhqh' nai to; gev no" tw' / pleivoni crov nw/. dia; tou'to kai;

pollai'" sunhvptonto gunaixiv n. aujtivka gou' n kai; meta; to; n

kataklusmo; n mev cri tw' n patriarcw' n, makrovbioi h\san. ejpeidh;

de; th; n oijkoumev nhn ejplhvrwsan, hjlattwvqh loipo; n oJ tw' n ejtw' n

ajriqmov".b


l. ouj.......mov non.......ajlla; kai; B –30 , : ouj j.......mov non.......ajlla; ,

: ouj j.......ajlla; kai; , , : ouj.......ajlla; Sir. Sch. F.M. = “they do not develop self-importance toward one another but toward the Creator himself .” In the Quaest.in oct. there are forty-nine other examples of ouj.......mov non.......ajlla; kai;, butnone of either ouj j.......mov non.......ajlla; or ouj j.......ajlla; kai;. The obvious sense of the alternative preferred by previous editors is quite inappropriate to the context.

b. Dt ., ; .mmc. Dt .mmd. Nm .mme.Am .mmf. Sm .

, , B, C, [ ] = mss.

a. Gn mmb. Gn .



Tiv dhv pote tw' / kataklusmw' / ta; tw' n aj nqrwvpwn plhvqh

diev fqeiren;a

() jExalei' yai tou' Kavi> n to; gev no" hjqevlhsen: aj nemivgh de; aujtw' /

kai; tw' n eujsebw' n hJ fulhv: dio; kai; th'" timwriva" metevschken.

ajrch; n dev tina kainou' bivou poihvsasqai boulhqeiv", to; n Nw' e kai;

tou;" ejkeiv nou pai'da" su; n tai'" gunaixi; diethvrhsen,b eujsebh' te

o[ nta kai; divkaion, ejk th'" tw' n eujsebw' n suggeneiva" blasthvsanta,

kai; th; n th'" paranomiva" ejpimixivan mishvsanta.c

Ouj mhv n, w{" tinev" fasin, ojrgh' / tini tau'ta kai; metameleiva/

pepoiv hke: tau'ta gavr toi aj nqrwvpina pavqh, hJ de; qeiva fuvsi"

ejleuqevra paqw' n. a[llw" te hJ metamevleia toi'" meta; th; n pei'ran

manqav nousi tw' n pragmavtwn th; n fuvsin katavllhlo":

ajgnoou' nte" ga;r to; ejsovmenon, probouleuvontai: ei\ta th' / peivra/

manqav nonte" wJ" oujk ojrqw'" ejbouleuvsanto, metamevlontai. oJ de;

Qeo;" ou{tw" oJra' / ta; meta; polla;" ejsovmena genea;" wJ" h[dhgegenhmev na: wJ" proorw' n toiv nun kai; proginwvskwn, ou{tw"

a{panta prutaneuv ei. tiv dhv pote toiv nun metamelei'tai, a{panta

pro;" th; n provgnwsin th; n oijkeivan oijkonomw' n; oujkou' n, ejpi; Qeou',

metamevleia oijkonomiva" metabolhv: metamemevlhmai, fhsi; n o{ti,

kev crika to;n Saou;l eij" basileva,d aj nti; tou': ejdokivmasa me; n

pau'sai tou'ton, e{teron de; ceirotonh'sai. ou{tw kaj ntau'qa,

ejnequmhvqhn o{ti ejpoivhsa to;n a[nqrwpon,e ejdokivmasa diolevsai

tw' n aj nqrwvpwn to; gev no". ajlla; filav nqrwpo" w[ n, spevrma to; n

Nw' e th' / fuvsei tethvrhken.

() jEpeidh; de; kai; tw' n ajlovgwn ta; gev nh th'" tw' n aj nqrwvpwn

e{ neka dedhmiouvrghtai creiva", kai; tau'ta toi'" aj nqrwvpoi"

sundiefqavrh, plh; n tw' n ej n th' / kibwtw' / su; n tw' / Nw' e diaswqev ntwn:


, , B, C, [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .–mmb. Gn .mmc. Gn .mmd. Sm . (LXX var.)mme. Gn .mm



Why was the bulk of the human race wiped out by the flood?a

() His intention was to annihilate Cain’s line, but since the tribe

of the virtuous had intermarried with Cain’s line, it was also in-

volved in the punishment. Wanting to make a beginning of a new

way of life, he preserved Noah and his sons along with their wives,b

for Noah was good and righteous, one who had come from the line

of the virtuous men and shunned intercourse with lawlessness.c

He did this, not, as some commentators claim, out of anger or on

second thoughts, as these are, of course, human states, from which

the divine nature is free. Second thoughts are typical of those who

learn how things really stand only after experience: they make their

plans in ignorance of the future, but later, in the light of experience,

realizing that their decision was wrong, have second thoughts. By

contrast, God sees what will happen many generations in the futureas if it had already happened; it is with foresight and foreknowledge

that he governs the universe. Why, then, would he have second

thoughts when he plans everything in accord with his own fore-

knowledge? In God’s case, therefore, a second thought is a change in

the plan of salvation: “I have second thoughts about anointing Saul

king”d is equivalent to “I have decided to depose him and appoint

someone else.” Similarly, in this case: “I regret making the humanbeing,”e means “I have decided to destroy humanity.” But being mer-

ciful, he preserved Noah as seed for the race.

() And since the species of irrational animals had been created

for man’s use, they were destroyed along with the human race ex-

Question



ejkevleuse ga;r oJ despovth" Qeo;" aj na; duvo me; n ejx eJkavstou

gev nou" tw' n dokouv ntwn ajkaqavrtwn diaswqh' nai, aj na; eJpta; de;

tw' n kaqarw' n.f ejpeidh; ga;r h[melle sugcwrei' n toi'" aj nqrwvpoi"

metalambav nein krew' n,g h[mellon de; kai; qusiva" aujtw' / prosfevreinth'" eujsebeiva" oiJ trov fimoi, pleivona ta; kaqara; fulacqh' nai

prosevtaxe: ta;" me; n trei'" suzugiva" eij" th; n au[xhsin tou'

gev nou", to; de; e} n to; peritto; n eij" qusivan. eujqu;" ga;r oJ Nw' e,

meta; th; n pau'lan th'" timwriva", qusivan tw' / Qew' / caristhvrion

prosenhv nocen: ajpo; pavntwn, fhsiv, tw' n kthnw' n tw' n kaqarw' n kai;

ajpo; pavntwn tw' n peteinw' n tw' n kaqarw' n,h wJ" ei\ nai dh'lon o{ti

touvtouge cavrin aj na; eJpta; prosevtaxen ejx eJkavstou gev nou" tw' nkaqarw' n eij" th; n kibwto; n eijsacqh' nai, i{ na, to; e} n zw' /on ejx eJkavstou

gev nou" oJ Nw' e prosfevrwn, mh; diafqeivrh/ ta;" suzugiva".

Tiv h[sqien ej n th' / kibwtw' / ta; qhriva;

Dh'lon o{ti cilov n te kai; spevrmata. e[ fh ga;r pro;" aujto; n oJ

Qeov", su; de; lhvyh/ seautw' / ajpo; pavntwn tw' n brwmavtwn, w |n

e[desqe, kai; sunavxei" pro;" eJautovn, kai; e[stai soi; kai; ejkeivnoi"

fagei' n.a ejx ajrch'" de; oJ Qeo;" ouj kreofagei' n ej nomoqevthse toi'"

aj nqrwvpoi": ijdouv, ga;r e[ fh, devdwka uJ mi' n pavnta cov rton spov rimon


f. Gn .f.mmg. Gn .f.mmh. Gn .

, , B, C, [ ] = mss.

ll. f. ejx ajrch'".......aj nqrwvpoi" F.M. : taujto; de kai; toi~ aj nqrwvpoi~ ejsqiv ein ej nomoqevthsen C, [ ] , Sir. Sch. = “The divine law enjoined that the animals should have the same food as human beings .”

l. kreofagei` n J.P. : krevon fagei` n F.M. : touto fagei` n . While theTLG lists ten attestations of kreofagei` n, the form krevon is elsewhere attestedonly in the Suda (Adler ) and the Et. gud. (ad kreion), in each case only toprovide a term intermediary between kreva~ = meat and kreion = meat tray.

a. Gn .mm



cept for those kept alive on the ark along with Noah. The Lord God,

remember, ordered that there be preserved two of each species of

animals considered unclean and seven of the clean.f Since he meant

to permit humanity to consume meat,g and the virtuous were to of-fer him sacrifices, he gave orders for the preservation of more clean

animals: namely, three pairs for natural increase and the one left

over for sacrificing. Immediately after the cessation of the punish-

ment, Noah made an offering of thanksgiving to God “from all the

clean animals and all the clean birds.”1h This shows that he ordered

seven of each of the clean animals to be taken aboard the ark, so that

in offering a single animal from each species, Noah would not de-stroy the pairs.

What did the animals eat while aboard the ark?

Fodder and seeds, of course. God said to him, “You will take for

yourself of all the foods you eat and store it up for yourself, and it

will serve as food for you and them.”a In the beginning, God’s law

did not countenance the human consumption of flesh: “Lo, I have

given you every plant upon all the earth bearing seed fit for sowing

Question

. As Theodoret had not adverted to difference in authorship in creation storiesand genealogies, so he does not highlight the discrepancies in the numbers of ani-mals taken aboard the ark in .f. and .f.



spei' ron spev rma, o{ ejstin ejpavnw pavsh" th' " gh' ", kai; pa' n xuvlon,

o} e[ cei ejn eJautw' / karpo;n spev rmato" spov rimon: uJ mi' n e[stai eij"

brw' sin kai; pa' si toi' " qhrivoi" th' " gh' ", kai; pa' si toi' " peteinoi' "

tou' ouj ranou' , kai; panti; eJ rpetw' / e{ rponti ejpi; th' " gh' ", o} e[ cei ejn eJautw' / yuch;n zwh' ": kai; pavnta cov rton clwro;n eij" brw' sin,b wJ"

ei\ nai dh'lon o{ti kai; oiJ a[ nqrwpoi kai; ta; zw' /a krewfagiva"

ajpeiv conto, trofh; n de; ei\ con tou;" ajpo; gh'" fuomev nou" karpouv".

to; de; spei' ron spev rma, spermai' non spev rma oJ ∆Akuvla"

hJrmhv neusen.

Pw'" nohtevon to; ej mnhvsqh Kuv rio" tou' Nw' e ; a

Prosfovrw" toi'" aj nqrwvpoi" hJ qeiva grafh; dialevgetai kaiv,

wJ" ajkouv ein duv nantai, metaschmativzei tou;" lovgou". w{sper

toiv nun ejpi; Qeou' hJ metamevleia oijkonomiva" ejsti; diaforav:

metamemevlhmai ga; r o{ti kev crika to;n Saou;l eij" basilevab aj nti;

tou': ejdokivmasa a[llon aj ntæ aujtou' katasth'sai. ou{tw kai;

ej ntau'qa nohtevon ejnequmhvqhn o{ti ejpoivhsa to;n a[nqrwpon c aj nti;

tou': ejdokivmasa aujtoi" panwleqrivan ejpagagei' n. kai; tou'to

toiv nun to; ej mnhvsqh oJ Qeo;" tou' Nw' e, ouj protevran lhvqhn

aij nivttetai, ajlla; th; n a[rrhton aujtou' filanqrwpivan dhloi', o{ti

dia; th; n peri; ejkei' non filostorgivan prosevtaxen wJ" tav cista

katapoqh' nai to; a[peiron ejkei' no kai; ajmevtrhton u{dwr. dhvlhn de;


b. Gn .f.

, , B, C, [ ] = mss.

l. aujtoi" panwleqrivan ejpagagei' n B –24 , c 1, : eij~ aujtou;~panwleqrivan ejpagagei' n , , , Sir. Sch. : aujtou;" panwleqrivan

ejpagagei' n F.M. Theodoret regularly combines ejpavgein + direct object withthe dative. In the Quaest. in oct. there is no other example of either ejpavgein +direct object + eij~ + accusative or of ejpavgein + double accusative.

a. Gn .mmb. Sm . (LXX var.)mmc. Gn .mm



and every tree containing fruit with seed fit for sowing; these will be

your food. And to all the beasts of the earth, all the birds of heaven,

and every reptile creeping on the earth, which has the spirit of life in

it, I have given every green plant for food.”1b So we may infer thathumans as well as animals abstained from eating meat and got their

nourishment from the produce of the earth. Aquila renders “bearing

seed” as “procreating seed.”

How should we understand the verse “The Lord remembered

Noah”?a

Holy Scripture speaks in a manner suited to human beings and

frames its expressions so we may receive them. So just as in God’s

case second thoughts represent a change in the plan of salvation—“I

have second thoughts about anointing Saul king”b in the sense, “I

have decided to put someone else in his place”—so here “I regret

making humanity,”c is to be taken to mean “I have decided to wipe

them out.” Accordingly, the verse, “God remembered Noah,” does

not imply previous forgetfulness but indicates his ineffable loving-

kindness in giving instructions, out of his affection for Noah, for

that vast, immeasurable quantity of water to be swallowed up as

quickly as possible. Indicating his unspeakable goodness, Moses

Question

. Cf. note to Q. .



aujtou' poiw' n th; n a[ fraston ajgaqovthta, prostevqeiken o{ti, kai;

pavntwn tw' n kthnw' n, kai; pavntwn tw' n peteinw' n, kai; pavntwn

tw' n eJ rpetw' n, o{sa h\ n metæ aujtou' ejn th' / kibwtw' /.d hJmw' n de; cavrin

kai; tau'ta promhqeiva" hjxivwsen: tou'to ga;r kai; oJ mevga" Dabi;dboa' /: oJ ejxanatevllwn cov rton toi' " kthvnesi kai; clovhn th' / douleiva/

tw' n ajnqrwvpwn:e kai; pavlin, ajnqrwvpou" kai; kthvnh swvsei", Kuv rie:f

diæ hJma'" ga;r kai; tw' n hJmetevrwn ejpimelei'tai.

Tiv ejstin wjsfravnqh Kuv rio" .......ojsmh;n eujwdiva" ; a

JUpedevxato tou' Nw' e to; eu[gnwmon, ouj th' / knivssh/ terfqeiv":

ojstw' n ga;r kaiomev nwn oujde; n duswdevsteron: ajlla; tou'

prosenhnocovto" ejpainevsa" th; n gnwvmhn. ouj ga;r swmatika; e[ cei

movria i{ na kai; rJi' na" aujtw' / periqw'men: dia; rJinw' n ga;r hJ

o[sfrhsi". ajmeivbetai ou\ n aujto; n th' / eujlogiva/, kaiv, ejpeidh;

spevrma tou' gev nou" h\ n, kai; rJivza th'" fuvsew", kai; deuvtero"

∆Adavm, divdwsin aujtw' / th; n eujlogivan, h |" ejkei' no" eujqu;"

diaplasqei;" ajpolelauvkei: aujxavnesqe, kai; plhquvnesqe, kai;

plhrwvsate th;n gh' n, kai; katakurieuvsate aujth' ": kai; oJ fov bo"

uJ mw' n kai; oJ trov mo" uJ mw' n e[stai ejpi; pa' si toi' " qhrivoi" th' " gh' ",

kai; ejpi; pavnta ta; peteina; tou' ouj ranou' , kai; ejpi; pavnta ta;

kinouv mena ejpi; th' " gh' ", kai; ejpi; pavnta" tou;" ij cquva" th' "

qalavssh", a} uJpo; cei' ra uJ mi' n devdwka.b kai; oJ lovgo" e[rgon

gevgone: devdie ga;r a{panta kai; aujth; n th; n tou' aj nqrwvpou skia; nkai; ta; nhktav, kai; ta; cersai'a, kai; ta; pthnav. ei\ta to; n peri;

th'" krewfagiva" aujtw' / devdwke novmon, wJ" lacav nwn tw' n krew' n

ajpolauv ein keleuvsa".c


d. Gn .mme. Ps .mmf. Ps .

, , B, C, [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .mmb. Gn .f.mmc. Gn .



adds, “and God remembered all the cattle, all the birds, and all the

reptiles that were with him in the ark.”d It was for our sake that he

regarded them worthy of his providence. Thus, the mighty David

also proclaims: “He makes grass grow for the cattle and crops for theservice of man”;e and again, “Lord, you will save men and cattle.”f

For our sake, he cares also for our possessions.

What is the meaning of “The Lord smelled a pleasing odor”?1a

This indicates God’s kindliness toward Noah—not that he was

pleased with the smell. Nothing smells worse than burning bones,

but God commended the attitude of the offerer. God has no body

divided into parts that we should imagine him with a nose, for smell

comes through the nose. So he rewarded Noah with the blessing,

and since he was the seed of the race, the root of human nature, and

a second Adam, God gave him the blessing which the first Adam had

received immediately after his creation: “Increase, multiply, fill the

earth, and subdue it. Fear of you and dread of you will be upon all

the beasts of the earth, upon all the birds of heaven, upon every-

thing that moves on the earth, and upon all the fish of the sea; I have

put them under your control.”b The word took effect. All things

were in dread even of man’s shadow: those that swim, those on land,

those that fly. Then delivering the law about the eating of flesh, hecommanded Noah to consume flesh as well as vegetables.2c

Question

. An Antiochene commentator could not pass over this “striking and daringstatement, even for Old Testament anthropomorphism” (von Rad, on .f.).

. Since this remark serves as a link to the next question, it looks likely that thecommentator is here selecting the questions to raise issues on which he wishes tocomment; often the questioner seems no more than a mere fiction.



Tiv no" cavrin ajpagoreuv ei tou' ai{mato" th; n metavlhyin;a

Safevsteron ejdivdaxen ej n tw' / novmw/: o{per gavr ejsti, fhsiv n,

aj nqrwvpw/ yuchv, tou'to toi'" ajlovgoi" to; ai |ma.b div ca toiv nun tou'

ai{mato" tw' n krew' n metalambav nwn, wJ" lacav nwn dhvpouqen

metalhv yh/: a[ yucon ga;r to; lav canon: eij de; meta; tou' ai{mato"

metalavboi", yuch; n ejsqiv ei". dio; dh; kai; ej ntau'qa e[ fh, plh;n kreva"

ejn ai{ mati yuch' " oujk e[desqe: kai; ga; r to; uJ mevteron ai | ma tw' n

yucw' n uJ mw' n ejkzhthvsw, ejk ceiro;" pavntwn tw' n qhrivwn ejkzhthvswaujtov,.......ejk ceiro;" ajnqrwvpou, ajdelfou' aujtou' , ejkzhthvsw th;n

yuch;n aujtou' .c ej ntau'qa aij nivttetai th; n aj navstasin, ouj c wJ" ta;

qhriva paravxwn eij" to; krithvrion kai; divka" th'" aj nqrwpofagiva"

eijspraxovmeno", ajllæ wJ" ta; uJpo; touvtwn katanalwqev nta swvmata

sunavxwn te kai; aj nasthvswn. ejn ga;r th' / ceiri; aujtou' ta; pev rata

th' " gh' ",d kai; rJav /dion aujtw' / pav ntoqen sunagagei' n to; hJmevteron

sw'ma. ej ntau'qa me; n ou\ n aij nigmatwdw'" tou'to dedhvlwke, dia; de;∆Iezekih;l safevsteron ejkhvruxe th; n aj navstasin.e

Dia; tiv de; o{lw" th; n krewfagivan ej nomoqevthsen;a

Eujqu;" dhmiourghvsa" to; n a[ nqrwpon, th'" gh'" aujtw' / tou;"

karpou;" ejdwrhvsato, ajpo; spermavtwn kai; dev ndrwn bioteuv ein

keleuvsa".b meta; de; to; n kataklusmov n, pleivona filotimei'tai


, , B, C, [ ] = mss.

l. eijspraxovmeno~ B, , c 1, : praxovmeno~ : eijspraxavmeno~Sir. Sch. F.M. The future, more widely attested than the aorist, seems clearly required by the context: cf. paravxwn . . . sunavxwn . . . a j nasthvswn.

a. Gn .mmb. Lv .mmc. Gn .f.mmd. Ps .mme. Ezek .–

, , B, C –50 , [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .mmb. Gn .m



Why did he forbid the consumption of the blood?a

His teaching was clearer in the Law: “As is the life for man, so is

blood for the brute beasts.”b When you eat meat without blood, you

eat it like vegetables, as vegetables are lifeless. Whereas if you were to

eat it with the blood, you would eat the life. Hence, he said here, too,

“Only, you shall not eat flesh with the blood of life. I shall require an

account of the blood of your lives; from the hand of all the beasts I

shall require it, and from the hand of a man’s brother I shall requirean account of his life.”c Here he hints at the resurrection—not that

he intends to bring wild animals to judgment and call them to ac-

count for killing people. Rather he will assemble the bodies they

have consumed and raise them up. After all, “In his hand are the

ends of the earth,”d and he can easily assemble our body from all

quarters. This passage has only obscure hints of the resurrection,

which he proclaimed quite clearly through Ezekiel.1e

Why did he legislate at all about the eating of meat?a

Immediately after creating man, he made him a gift of the fruitsof the earth and commanded him to live off seeds and trees.b After

the flood, however, he regaled him with a wider provision and com-

Question

. Such eschatological interpretations are rare in this, largely literalist, com-mentary.



trofhv n, kai; peteinav, kai; nhktav, kai; cersai'a zw' /a quv ein te kai;

ejsqiv ein keleuvsa", pavqei pavqo" ejxelauv nwn kai; tw' / ejlavttoni

qerapeuvwn to; mei'zon: proorw' n ga;r oJ Qeo;" o{ti tau'ta pav nta

qeopoihvsousin oiJ eij" ejscavthn ajlogivan ejkpeptwkovte",sugcwrei' th; n brw'sin i{ na th; n ajsevbeian pauvsh/: ajbelthriva" ga;r

ejscavth" to; ejsqiovmenon proskunei' n. diav toi tou'to ta; me; n

ajkavqarta tw' n zwv /wn levgei, ta; de; kaqarav, i{ na, ta; me; n wJ"

ajkavqarta bdeluttovmenoi, mh; qeopoiw'si, ta; de; mh; proskunw'sin

ejsqiovmena.

Tiv no" e{ neka mh; ejmevmfqh Nw' e, mevqh/ peripeswv n;a

jApeiriva" h\ n, oujk ajkrasiva", to; pavqo": prw'to" ga;r

aj nqrwvpwn ajpoqliv ya" to; n th'" ajmpevlou karpo; n kai; ajgnow' n, ouj

mov non to; povson th'" povsew", ajlla; kai; to; n trovpon th'"

metalhv yew", o{ti dei' keravsai provteron, ei\qæ ou{tw piei' n, to; n

kavron uJpevmeine. kaino; n de; oujde; n pevponqe gumnwqeiv": kai; ga;r

nu' n tine" gumnou' ntai kaqeuvdonte", aj fairoumev nou tou' u{pnou

th; n ai[sqhsin. tw' / u{pnw/ de; hJ mevqh prosginomev nh, piqanwtevran

th'" gumnwvsew" th; n ajpologivan poiei'.

Tou' novmou mhdevpw teqev nto" o}" diagoreuv ei tima' n to; n

patevra kai; th; n mhtevra,a pw'" oJ Ca;m wJ" patraloiva" kriv netai;b

Th' / fuvsei tou;" aj nagkaivou" ej ntevqeike novmou" oJ poihthv":


, , B, C, [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .f.

, , B, C, [ ] = mss.

a. Ex .mmb. Gn .–m



manded him to slaughter and eat animals that fly, swim, and live on

land. In this way, he purposed to drive out one passion with another

and cure a greater ailment with a lesser. That is to say, as God fore-

saw that people would succumb to the worst folly and make gods of all these things, he allowed them to eat animals to put a stop to idol-

atry, since only the worst fools will worship what they eat. Indeed,

he spoke of some animals as unclean and others as clean, so that

men would not make gods of the unclean, which they loathed, nor

worship the clean, which they ate.

Why did Noah incur no blame for succumbing to drunkenness?a

What happened to Noah was the result of inexperience, not in-

temperance. He was the first to crush the fruit of the vine and was

unaware of both the amount to drink and of the way to imbibe—

that is, that one must dilute the wine before drinking it—so he fell

into torpor. His nakedness was hardly odd. Today as well people go

to sleep naked, as sleep robs them of awareness. And when sleep is

accompanied by intoxication, there is an even more plausible excuse

for nakedness.1

If the law requiring honor of father and mother had not yet been

promulgated,a why was Ham condemned as a parricide?b

The Creator placed the necessary laws in human nature itself.

Question

. As Speiser remarks (p. ), the story of Noah’s drunkenness (Gn .–) is“actually aimed at Canaan and, by extension, at the Canaanites,” rather than at

Noah himself; Theodoret, who does not recognize this aetiological issue, is con-cerned to defend the patriarch from the charge of immorality. He does not addressthe curse of Canaan until Q. .



ou{tw to; n Kavi> n katevkrinen, ejpeidhvper aujto; n hJ fuvsi"

ejdivdasken wJ" oJ fov no" parav nomo". aujtivka gou' n dovlw/

crhsavmeno" sunergw' /, povrrw tw' n gegennhkovtwn ajpagagwv n,

aj nei'le to; n ajdelfo; n kaiv, tou' Qeou' punqanomev nou, pou' ....... [ Abel oJ ajdelfov" sou ; hjrnhvqh:c dh'lon de; wJ" ejpistavmeno" o{ti

kako; n to; gegenhmev non hjrnhvqh to; tolmhqev n. ejlegcqei;" de; uJpo;

tou' dikaivou kritou', wJmolovghsen uJpe;r suggnwvmhn hJmarthkev nai:

meivzwn, gavr fhsin, hJ aJ martiva mou tou' ajfeqh' naiv me.d kai;

mev ntoi kai; oJ ∆Adavm, th'" qeiva" ejpifaneiva" aijsqovmeno",

ejpeiravqh laqei' n, wJ" eijdw;" o{ti dh; to; klevptein kakov n.e

Ou{tw kai; oJ Ca;m th; n tou' patraloivou kathgorivan ejdevxato,wJ" paraba;" to; n th'" fuvsew" novmon. o{ti ga;r kai; to; geraivrein

tou;" gegennhkovta" hJ fuvsi" ejdivdaske marturou'sin oiJ tou' Ca;m

ajdelfoiv, oi{, tou' patro;" to; pavqo" paræ ejkeiv nou memaqhkovte",

meta; pollh'" aijdou'" sunekavluyan to; n patevra, eij" toujpivsw

badivzonte" wJ" a] n h{kista i[doien o{qen sparev nte" ejblavsthsan.f

toigavrtoi mavla eijkovtw" kai; tou' patro;" th; n eujlogivan

ejdrev yanto.

Tiv dhv pote tou' Ca;m ejptaikovto", oJ ejkeiv nou pai'" ejdevxato

th; n ajrav n;a

Koinh' / pav nte" meta; th; n tou' kataklusmou' pau'lan th'" qeiva"

metevlacon eujlogiva": tolmhro; n toiv nun uJ|pevlaben oJ Nw' e ejpagagei' n ajra; n tw' / th'" qeiva" eujlogiva" meteilhcovti: touvtou

cavrin tw' / ejkeiv nou paidi; peritevqeike th; n ajrav n. e[ cei de; kai; hJ

timwriva to; divkaion: ejpeidh; gavr, uiJo;" w] n, ejxhvmarten eij"

patevra, dia; th'" tou' paido;" ajra'" dev cetai timwrivan. pro;" de;


|17

c. Gn .mmd. Gn .mme. Gn .mmf. Gn .f.

, , B, C, (inc.) [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .–mm



Thus, he condemned Cain, since nature had taught him that mur-

der was unlawful. Indeed, employing a ruse, Cain led his brother far

away from his parents and killed him. When God asked, “Where is

your brother Abel?” he denied what he had done.c So, we concludethat he denied committing the deed because he understood he had

done wrong. When censured by the righteous judge, he confessed he

had committed a sin too great for pardon: “My sin is too grave for

forgiveness.”d Adam is another example; sensing the divine pres-

ence, he tried to hide, for he knew that stealing was wrong.e

Thus, Ham was charged with parricide for transgressing the nat-ural law. The behavior of Ham’s brothers confirms that nature her-

self had inculcated respect for parents; after learning from Ham of

their father’s condition, they displayed great respect in going in

backwards to cover their father so there would be no chance of see-

ing the organ of their own sowing and generation.f Thus, it was

right and proper that they should receive their father’s blessing.

As the fault was Ham’s, why was his son the object of the curse?a

After the flood, everyone shared alike in the divine blessing.

Therefore, Noah, judging it rash to heap curses on one who was arecipient of divine blessing, imposed the curse on that man’s son.

And the punishment was justified; since as son Ham had sinned

against his father, he received retribution through the curse on his

own son. A further point to take into consideration is that if Ham

personally had been the object of the curse, the punishment would

Question



touvtoi" skophtevon kajkei' no, wJ" eij aujto;" oJ Ca;m ejdevxato th; n

ajrav n, eij" o{lon a] n dievbh to; gev no" hJ timwriva: eij" de; to; n

newvtaton uiJo; n th; n paideivan parevpemye.

Kai; tou'to de; eijdev nai proshvkei, wJ" provrrhsiv" ejstin, oujkajrav, tou' dikaivou ta; rJ hvmata. ejpeidh; ga;r e[mellen oJ ∆Israhvl, ejk

tou' Sh;m katavgwn to; gev no", th'" Palaistiv nh" paralambav nein

th; n despoteivan: tauvthn de; pavlai w[ /koun oiJ ejk tou' Canaa; n

beblasthkovte": eij" ajra; n schmativzei th; n provrrhsin,

proagoreuvwn me; n ta; ejsovmena, dedittovmeno" de; tou;" u{steron

ejsomev nou" mh; plhmmelei' n eij" goneva". kai; tou'to safw'" hJma'"

hJ tou' Sh;m eujlogiva didavskei: eujloghtov", gavr fhsi, Kuv rio" oJQeo;" tou' Shv m, kai; e[stai Canaa;n pai' " aujtou' :b ouj ga;r toi'" duvo

tou'ton uJpevtaxen, ajlla; mov nw/ tw' / Shvm. kai; tou' me; n ∆Iav feq th; n

polugonivan proeivrhke, tou' de; Sh;m th; n eujsevbeian: to; n ga;r

Qeo; n ej n toi'" skhnwvmasi tou' Sh;m katoikhvsein proeivrhke.

Katwv /khse de; ej n toi'" ejk tou' Sh;m patriavrcai" kai; ej n toi'"

ejk touvtwn beblasthkovsi profhvtai", kai; ej n th' / skhnh' /

provteron kai; ej n ÔIerosoluvmoi" u{steron. ajkribe;" de; tevlo"

e[schken hJ profhteiva to; th'" oijkonomiva" musthvrion o{te aujto;"

oJ Qeo;" lovgo", oJ tou' Qeou' kai; patro;" monogenh;" uiJov",

ejsarkwvqh, kai; ej nhnqrwvphse, kai; nao; n eJautou' proshgovreusenc

h} n ejk spevrmato" Dabi;d kai; ∆Abraa;m e[labe savrka:d ejk tou' Sh;m

ga;r kai; ou |toi kath'gon to; gev no". hJ de; tou' Canaa; n douleiva ej n

toi'" gabawnivtai" to; tevlo" ejdevxato.e

Th; n a[sfaltov n tine" tw' n didaskavlwn a[sbeston e[ fasan

ei\ nai.a


b. Gn .mmc. Jn .–mmd. Mt .mme. Jos .–

, , B, C, [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .



jAgnoou' nte", wJ" eijkov", ta;" ej n th' / ∆Assuriva/ phgav", wj / hvqhsan

ajsbevstw/ to; n puvrgon wj /kodomh'sqai. ajkribw'" de; para; tw' n

ejkei'qen aj fikomev nwn memavqhka wJ" eijsi; phgai; tauvthn

aj nabluvzousai th; n u{lhn meqæ u{dato", kai; o{ti, tai'" oijkodomivai"sunufaiv nonte", ejpi; tauvth" th; n wjpthmev nhn sunetivqesan

pliv nqon. ou{tw to; n puvrgon ejkei' non wj /kodomh'sqaiv fasi, kai; oiJ

aujtovptai touvtou kai; dioruvxai ti mevro" ijscurivsanto kai;

ajkribw'" diagnw' nai wJ" a[sfalto" tai'" wjpthmev nai" uJpevstrwtai

pliv nqoi". a[llw" te kai; livqwn ei\ nai spav nin ej n th' / ∆Assuriva/

fasiv, kai; dia; tou'to tai'" pliv nqoi" aj nti; livqwn kecrh'sqai. livqwn

de; div ca pw'" a] n gev noito a[sbesto";

Poiva glw'ssa ajrcaiotevra;a

Dhloi' ta; oj novmata: ∆Ada;m gavr, kai; Kavi> n, kai [Abel, kai; Nw' e

th'" Suvrwn i[dia glwvtth": ajdamqa ; ga;r th; n ejruqra; n gh' n e[qo"

toi'" suvroi" kalei' n. ∆Ada;m toiv nun h] oJ ghvi>no" h] oJ coi>ko;"

eJrmhneuv etai,b kai; Kavi>n kth si": tou'to de; uJmnw' n oJ ∆Ada;m


l. w/ jkodomhsqai Sch. : oijkodomeisqai B, , : w/ jkodomeisqai Sir.F.M. For the perfect infinitive governed by an aorist, cf. Eus., D. e. .. (ou |toime; n tessaravkonta kai; e}x e[tesin w/ jkodomhsqai to; n nao; n e[ fasan). Whilethe TLG provides eighteen attestations of the form w/ jkodomhsqai,w/ jkodomeisqai, clearly an error of etacism, is listed only for this passage.

l. tai~ oijkodomivai~ , c 1, Sir. Sch. : tai~ ej n u{dasi oijkodomivai~ F.M. =“the people apply this to each layer of the buildings they construct on the water and then lay the baked brick on top” : ta;~ ej n u{dasi oijkodomiva~ , = “as they construct their buildings on the water, the people lay the baked brick on top of it (i.e.,the bitumen).” Construction with brick, i.e., baked mud, in or over water, seemsquite implausible; cf., e.g., Caesar, Civ. . on the use of water to destroy brick.

, , B, C, [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .mmb. Gn .mm



They probably thought the tower was built with unslaked lime

because they did not know about the springs in Assyria. But from

travelers who have been there I have gathered circumstantial infor-

mation to the effect that there are springs, which, along with theirwater, pour forth bitumen, and that the people apply this to each

layer of their constructions and then lay the baked brick on top.

This, so they claim, is how the tower was built, and eyewitnesses,

who have managed to break off a piece, have come to the definite

conclusion that bitumen was laid on the baked bricks. Indeed, as my

informants indicate that there is a shortage of stone in Assyria—

hence, people there build with bricks rather than stone—it is hardto see how there could be any unslaked lime without stone.1

Which is the most ancient language?a

The names give the clue; Adam, Cain, Abel, and Noah belong to

Syriac. Speakers of Syriac normally refer to red earth as “adamtha,”

so Adam means “earthly” or “made of dust”;b Cain “acquisition,” for

when he sang God’s praises, Adam said, “Thanks to God I have ac-

Question

. Though the story of the Tower was “the keystone to the Yahwistic primevalhistory” (von Rad, p. ), Theodoret selects for comment no more than this detail,

which testifies to his interest in natural history. He may be contradicting an opin-ion of Eusebius of Emesa repeated by Diodore, v. Petit, La chaîne, vol. , frag.

and cf. Petit, Catenae, vol. , frag. .



ei[rhken, ejkthsav mhn a[nqrwpon dia; tou' Qeou' :c kai; [Abel

pevnqo": prw'to" ga;r ou |to" w[ fqh nekro;" kai; prw'to" toi'"

gegennhkovsi proujxev nhse pev nqo":d kai; Nw' e ajnavpausi".e

JH ou\ n eJbraiva povqen h[rxato;

Oi\mai aujth; n iJ era; n ei\ nai fwnhv n: w{sper ga;r ej n toi'"

eJllhnikoi'" naoi'" i[dioiv tine" h\san carakth're" grammavtwn, ou}"

iJeratikou;" proshgovreuon, ou{tw dia; tou' Mwu>sevw" oJ tw' n o{lwnQeo;" tauvthn e[dwke th; n glw'ttan, didakth; n ou\san, ouj fusikhv n.

toigavrtoi tw' n a[llwn aJpav ntwn kata; th; n tw' n ejqnw' n ej n oi |" a] n

gennhqw'si fqeggomev nwn fwnhv n, kai; tw' n me; n ej n ∆Italiva/

tiktomev nwn th' / ijtalw' n kecrhmev nwn, tw' n de; ej n th' / ÔEllavdi th' /

eJllhv nwn, kai; tw' n ej n Persivdi th' / persw' n, kai; tw' n ej n Aijguvptw/

th' / aijguptivwn, ta; eJbraivwn paidiva ouj th' / eJbraiva/ e[stin euJrei' n

eujqu;" kecrhmev na fwnh' /, ajlla; th' / ejkeiv nwn paræ oi |" ejgennhvqhsan.

ei\ta, meiravkia genovmena, didavsketai tw' n grammavtwn tou;"

carakth'ra", manqav nei de; dia; tw' n grammavtwn th; n qeivan

grafhv n, th' / eJbraiv >di gegrammev nhn fwnh' /. oi\mai de; tou'to

aij nivttesqai kai; to; n makavrion Dabi;d ej n tw' / ojgdohkostw' / yalmw' /:

glw' ssan h}n oujk e[gnw h[kousen.a


c. Gn .mmd. Gn .mme. Gn .

, , *, C, [ ] = mss.

a. Ps .



quired a man”;c Abel “grief,” since his was the first death ever seen

and he was the first to cause his parents pain;d and Noah “rest.”1e

So what was the origin of Hebrew?

I believe that Hebrew is a sacred tongue. As in the pagan temples

there were special signs called “hieratic,” so, through Moses, the God

of the universe imparted this language, which comes, not from na-ture, but from instruction. Indeed, other peoples speak the language

of the nations in which they have been born, those raised in Italy us-

ing that of the Italians, those in Greece that of the Greeks, those in

Persia that of the Persians, and those in Egypt that of the Egyptians.

Likewise, we observe the children of the Hebrews using initially, not

Hebrew, but the language of the people among whom they have

been born. Then in their teens they are taught the alphabet of the

written language, and, through the written word, gain knowledge of

holy Scripture, which is written in Hebrew. I believe blessed David

also hints at this in the eighty-first psalm: “He heard a language

which he did not know.”1a

Question

. When Theodoret, a native speaker of Syriac, relies on his knowledge of thisdialect of Aramaic to make direct use of the Hebrew text, he sometimes misinter-prets the etymologies of the biblical authors. Here his grasp of Syriac does not pre-vent his confusing similar Hebrew terms for “red,” “man,” and “earth” and accept-ing unreliable etymologies for the names Cain, Abel, and Noah.

. Theodoret seems to be referring to Jews of his acquaintance who had learnedHebrew in preparation for a Bar Mitzvah. In his earlier commentary on the

Psalms, he had explained the “language” or “tongue” of . LXX (. MT) as re-ferring to the divine voice, which Israel had never heard until God conferred theLaw during their trek through the wilderness.



jAllav tinev" fasin ajpo; tou' {Eber eJ braivan keklh'sqai th; n

glw'ssan: ejkei' non ga;r mov non ej n th' / protevra/ mei' nai fwnh' /, kai;

ejkei'qen eJ braivou " oj nomasqh' nai.a

jEgw; de; oi\mai eJbraivou" oj nomasqh' nai ejk tou' to; n patriavrchn

∆Abraa;m ajpo; th'" caldaivwn cwvra" eij" th; n Palaistiv nhn ejlqei' n,

to; n Euj fravthn potamo; n diabav nta: eJ bra ga;r th' / suvrwn fwnh' /

oJ peravth~ oj nomavzetai. ou{tw de; kai; aujto;" ejkalei'to, kai;

mavrtu" hJ qeiva grafhv: meta; ga;r th; n tou' Lw;t aij cmalwsivan ejlqwv n ti", fhsiv n, ajphvggeilen ∆ Abraa; m tw' / peravth/.b tou'to de;

para; tw' / eJbraivw/ keivmenon eu |ron eJ brei: |to; de; eJ brei

ejxellhnizovmenon eJ brai' o" giv netai: kai; ga;r ej n ejkeiv nw/ tw' / cwrivw/,

e[ nqa hJ aijguptiva peri; tou' ∆Iwsh; f e[ fh, eijshvgage" hJ mi' n pai' da

eJ brai' on ej mpaivzein hJ mi' n,c para; tw' / eJbraivw/ eJbrei kei'tai.

Eij de; ejk tou' {Eber eJbrai'oi kalou' ntai, ouj mov nou" ej crh' n

touvtou" ou{tw prosagoreuv esqai: polla; ga;r e[qnh ejk tou' {Eber katavgei to; gev no", kaiv, i{ na tou;" a[llou" pav nta" parw',

ejk touvtou eijsi; n ijsmahli'tai, kai; oiJ ajpo; th'" Cettouvra", kai;

ijdoumai'oi, kai; ajmalhki'tai, kai; mwabi'tai, kai; ajmmani'tai, kai;

oiJ ta;" Kavrra" oijkou' nte": ejk tou' ga;r Nacw;r kai; tou' Lavban


|11

, (inc.) , B, C –50 , [ ] = mss.

l. oJ peravth~ C –50 , [ ] , Sir. Sch. : diavbasi~ F.M. = “for ‘hebra’ in Syriac means ‘crossing’” : hJ diavbasi~ , , : om. . N.B. thefollowing ou{tw de;.......ga;r, which look forward to the term peravth/ in thefollowing quotation of Gn ., and cf. Ph., Migr. (peravth~ ga;r oJÔEbraio~ eJrmhneuv etai) and F. Petit, La chaîne, vol. , frag. .

l. ∆Abraa; m Sir. Sch. F.M. : ∆Abra; m (?) J.P. It is difficult to believe that sucha precise scholar as Thdt. would not have adverted to the premature use of thisform of the name, not conferred by God until .. Nonetheless, as F.M. reportsno variants in the spelling either here or in the quotation of . in the nextquestion, and as Wevers cites more than isolated support for ∆Abraa; m at ., Ihave left it unchanged; cf. the critical note on Q. .

a. Gn ., f.;.–mmb. Gn .mmc. Gn .



1

But some commentators have claimed that the language is called

“Hebrew” after Heber, because he alone continued to use the origi-

nal language, and that the “Hebrews” were named from him.a

I rather think that the Hebrews received their name from the fact

that the patriarch Abraham came from the land of the Chaldeans

into Palestine by crossing the Euphrates, for “hebra” is the Syriac

term for an emigrant. Holy Scripture witnesses that he was called by

this name. For after Lot was captured, someone came and “reportedto Abraham the emigrant (peravth/).”b I find the word “perates” ex-

pressed in the Hebrew as “hebrei,” which, when translated into

Greek, becomes “Hebraios.”2 Indeed, in the passage where the

Egyptian woman says of Joseph, “You brought us a Hebrew slave to

insult us,”c “hebrei” occurs in the Hebrew.

If, on the other hand, they are called Hebrews after Heber, they

should not be the only ones to have this name, for many nations aredescended from Heber. I shall not try to produce a complete list, but

the Israelites come from him, as well as those born of Keturah, the

Idumeans, the Amalekites, the Moabites, the Ammonites, and the

people who live in Haran, the descendants of Nahor and Laban.

Question

. In the editions of J. Sirmond and J.L. Schulze, this question forms part of theprevious; thus, in their numeration, all questions from – bear a number lowerby one; cf. note on Q. . My numeration here and to the end of the work followsthat of Fernández Marcos and Sáenz-Badillos.

. The Greek terms diabav nta and diavbasi~, the first a participle, the seconda noun, both derive from the verb diabaiv nein “to cross”; peravth~ or “emigrant”derives from peraiv nw, another verb meaning “to cross.” Theodoret correctly de-tects the semantic similarity of the Syriac hebra, the Hebrew hebri, and the Greek

peravth~. Somewhat similarly, Chrysostom had seen (hom.

.

in Gen ) in the useof peravth~ in Gn . an etymological pun on the name “Abraham,” which hewrongly understood to be derived from ‘br “to cross,” the root of hebri.



to; gev no" katavgousin. ajllæ oujdei;" touvtwn th' / eJbraiv >di crh'tai

fwnh' /. ajlla; peri; touvtou zugomacei' n perittov n: oujde; n ga;r tw' /

lovgw/ th'" eujsebeiva" lumaiv netai, ka[ n te tou'to, ka[ n te ejkei' no

dexwvmeqa.

Tinev" fasi th' / Savrra/ migh' nai to; n Farawv.a

Poiva" ou\ n khdemoniva" ajphvlausen ∆Abraa;m para; tou' tw' no{lwn Qeou', eij periei'den aujtou' moiceuomev nhn th; n gamethv n; tiv

dhv pote de; kai; h[tasen ejtasmoi'" megavloi" kai; ponhroi'" to; n

Faraw; kai; a{panta to; n oi\kon aujtou`b eij mh; kwlu'sai th; n

parav nomon hjbouvleto sunafhv n; kai; aujto;" de; oJ Faraw; th; n

a[gnoian eij" ajpologivan probavlletai, kai; mevmfetai tw' / ∆Abraa;m

ajdelfh; n keklhkovti th; n gamethv n, kai; didavskei wJ", ouj c uJbrivsai

aujthv n, ajlla; gh'mai boulovmeno" e[labe: tiv tou' to, gavr fhsin,

ejpoivhsav" moi.......o{ti gunhv souv ejstin ; i{na tiv ei\ pa" .......ajdelfhv

mouv ejsti; kai; e[labon aujth;n ej mautw' / eij" gunai' ka. kai; nu' n ijdou;

hJ gunhv sou ejnantivon sou: labw;n ajpovtrece.c kai; ouj mov non

ei\pen, ajlla; kai; e[praxe, kai; pantodaph'" khdemoniva" hjxivwsen:

ejneteivlato, gavr fhsi, Faraw; ajndravsi peri; tou' ∆Abraa; m

sumpropev myai aujtovn, kai; th;n gunai' ka aujtou' , kai; pavnta o{sa

h\ n aujtw' /.d dh'lon toiv nun wJ", eujqu;" aJrpasqeivsh" th'" Savrra",

ejpevdhse th' / novsw/ to; n Faraw; tw' n o{lwn oJ pruvtani", hJ de; novso"th; n o[rexin h[mblunen, kaiv, tw' n diktuvwn ei[sw th; n qhvran e[ cwn, oJ

qhreuth;" oujk ajphvlause th'" a[gra": hJ ga;r novso" ejkwvluse.


, a 2 , B, C, [ ] = mss.

l. ∆Abraa; m v. the critical note to l. of the previous question.

a. Gn .–mmb. Gn .mmc. Gn .f.mmd. Gn .



None of these uses the Hebrew language. No point, however, in

squabbling over this: no harm is done to religion, whichever opin-

ion we adopt.3

Some commentators have claimed that Pharaoh had relations

with Sarah.a

What kind of care would Abraham have received from the Godof the universe if God had allowed his spouse to be defiled in an

adulterous relationship? Why would he have put Pharaoh and all his

household to the test with severe and painful trialsb unless his inten-

tion was to prevent the unlawful union? Pharaoh himself alleged ig-

norance as an excuse and blamed Abraham for saying his spouse

was his sister, and this shows that he took Sarah, not to violate, but

to marry, her: “Why did you do this to me, as she is your wife? Why

did you say, ‘She is my sister?’ And so I took her for my wife! Now,

lo, here is your wife before you; take her and be off.”c He not only

spoke but acted on his words and then honored him with every

mark of respect: “Pharaoh gave his men instructions regarding

Abraham, to accompany him, his wife, and all his possessions.”1d We

can, therefore, conclude that, as soon as Sarah was snatched away, he

who governs the world restrained Pharaoh with an ailment, and this

blunted his desire; though the prey was already in his toils, thehunter, prevented by the ailment, could not enjoy his catch.

Question

. Exhibiting the moderation for which Bardy has praised him (“Interpréta-tion,” p. ), Theodoret finally concedes that such details are not vital to what is,after all, a pastoral commentary; cf. note to the “Introduction to Theodoret’ sLife and Works” and the last two sentences of Q. .

. Guinot (p. ) is unable to identify the source of the contrary and under-standable view cited in the question. Chrysostom (hom. . in Gen.), like Theodo-ret, emphasises the role of God’s providence in protecting Sarah.



Kai; tiv no" e{ neken ej ntau'qa me; n ejsivghsen hJ grafh; to;

fulacqh' nai th; n Savrran ajlwvbhton,a ej n de; tw' / kata; to; n

∆Abimevlec dihghvmati safw'" tou'to dedhvlwke;b

[Emellen hJ Savrra thnikau'ta tivktein to; n ∆Isaavk.c i{ na toiv nun

mh; u{popton gev nhtai to; spevrma tou' ∆Abraavm, safw'" ejkei'

dedhvlwken hJ qeiva grafh; o{ti ouj c h{ yato aujth'" oJ ∆Abimevlec.

Kai; ej nteu'qen mev ntoi kajkei'qen ijstevon wJ" kai; tou;"

barbavrou" hJ fuvsi" ejdivdaxen o{ti ponhro; n hJ moiceiva kai;timwriva" a[xion. kai; ga;r oJ Faraw; tou'to dedhvlwken,

ejpimemyavmeno" tw' / ∆Abraavm,d kai; oJ ∆Abimevlec pro;" to; n tw' n

o{lwn e[ fh Qeov n, Kuv rie, e[qno" ajgnoou' n kai; divkaion ajpoktenei' " ;

oujk aujtov" moi ei\ pen o{ti ajdelfhv mouv ejsti, kai; aujthv moi ei\ pen,

ajdelfov" mouv ejstin ; ejn kardiva/ kaqara' / kai; ejn dikaiosuvnh/

ceirw' n ejpoivhsa tou' to.e tevqeike de; oJ suggrafeu;" kai; tou' Qeou'

th; n ajpovkrisin: ei\ pe ......., gavr fhsin, oJ Qeo;" tw' / ∆Abimevlec kaqæ u{pnon, kajgw; e[gnwn o{ti ejn kaqara' / kardiva/ ejpoivhsa" tou' to kai;

ejfeisav mhn .......sou tou' mh; a{ yasqai aujth'", tou' mh;

aJ martei' n .......eij" ej mev: e{neken touvtou oujk ajfh' kav se a{yasqai

aujth' ". nu' n ou\ n ajpovdo" th;n gunai' ka tw' / ajnqrwvpw/, o{ti profhvth"

ejsti; kai; proseuvxetai peri; sou' , kai; swqhvsh/ su; kai; pa'" oJ

oi\kov" sou. eij de; mh; ajpodivdw", gnw' qi o{ti ajpoqanh' / suv.f

Didavskei de; hJma'" oJ qei'o" lovgo" o{ti th'" dikaiosuv nh" tou;"

ejrasta;" plhmmelei' n ejx ajgnoiva" mevllonta" oujk eja' /: dh'lon

toiv nun wJ" kai; to; n Faraw; kekwvluken aJmartei' n, wJ" ajdelfh; n tou'

∆Abraa;m novmw/ gavmou th; n Savrran eijlhfovta. ejpeidh; de; kreivttwn

h\ n, wJ" eijkov", oJ ∆Abimevlec tou' Farawv, ejkei' non me; n dia;

paideiva" th; n paranomivan ejdivdaxen, touvtw/ de; kai; th'" aijkiva"

kai; tou' plhmmelhvmato" oujk e[dwken aujto;" th; n sugcwvrhsin


, a 2 , B, C, [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .–mmb. Gn .mmc. Gn .–mmd. Gn .f.mme. Gn .f.mmf. Gn .f.



Why, then, does Scripture here make no mention of Sarah’s pro-

tection from harma while it states this explicitly in the passage re-

garding Abimelech?b

Sarah was then on the point of giving birth to Isaac.c To forestall

any doubt of Abraham’s paternity of the child, in that passage, holy

Scripture explicitly stated that Abimelech did not lay a hand on her.

From this incident and the other we should realize that nature

teaches even savages that adultery is wicked and deserving of pun-ishment. After all, Pharaoh indicated this when he reproached Abra-

ham.d And Abimelech said to the God of the universe, “Lord, will

you slaughter an ignorant and righteous people? Did he not say to

me, ‘She is my sister,’ and did she not say to me, ‘He is my brother’? I

did this with a clear conscience and with unstained hands.”e The

historian also cited God’s reply: “God said to Abimelech in a dream,

I too am aware that you did this with a clear conscience, and I pre-vented you from touching her so you would not sin against me; that

is why I did not allow you to touch her. So now give his wife back to

her husband, because he is a prophet and will pray for you, and you

will be saved, you and all your household. But if you do not give her

back, know that you will die.”f

The divine word teaches us that he restrains the lovers of virtuewhen they are about to sin through ignorance. Thus, we may con-

clude that he also prevented Pharaoh from sinning after he had tak-

en Sarah for lawful marriage under the impression she was Abra-

ham’s sister. Abimelech was evidently a better man than Pharaoh.

God taught Pharaoh about his transgression by punishing him. In

the case of Abimelech, though not himself pardoning the outrage

Question



ajlla; to; n hjdikhmev non aijth'sai tauvthn aj nevmeinen, ejpifaneiva"

te hJmevrw" hjxivwse, kai; lovgoi" hjpivoi" ejpevdeixe th; n

tetolmhmev nhn paranomivan.

J O Melcisede;k povqen kath'ge to; gev no";a

Tou' qespesivou levgonto" Pauvlou, ajpavtwr, aj mhvtwr,

ajgenealovghto",b tiv" a] n gnoiv h to; ajlhqev"; eijko;" de; aujto; n ejk

tw' n ejqnw' n ejkeiv nwn ei\ nai, tw' n th; n Palaistiv nhn oijkouv ntwn: ejkeiv nwn ga;r kai; basileu;" kai; iJ ereu;" ejtuvgcanen w[ n, iJ ereu;" de;

tou' tw' n o{lwn Qeou': h\ n ......., gavr fhsin, iJereu;" tou' qeou' tou'

uJyivstou.c o{qen aujtw' / kai; ∆Abraa;m oJ patriavrch" prosenhv noce

ta;" tw' n lafuvrwn dekavta" kaiv, divkaio" w] n kai; tou' Qeou' fivlo",

paræ ejkeiv nou th; n eujlogivan karpou'tai.d th'" ga;r despotikh'"

ei\ cen iJ erwsuv nh" to; n tuvpon:e dio; dh; kai; a[rtou" tw' / ∆Abraa;m kai;

oi\ non aj ntevdwken, wJ" toiau'ta tuco; n prosfevrein eijwqw;" tw' / tw' n

o{lwn Qew' /:f e[dei ga;r kaj n touvtw / deicqh' nai to; n tuvpon.


l. paranomivan. Sir. F.M. : paranomivan. ei\ pe de; ∆Abimevlec tw` / ∆Abrav m:tiv ejnidw;n ejpoivhsa~ to; rJh` ma tou` to; ei\ pe de; ∆Abrav m: ei\ pon gav r, mhvpote oujk e[stin qeosev beia ejn tw/ ` tovpw/ touvtw/, ej mev te ajpoktenou` sin e{neken th` ~ gunaikov~ mou. kai; ga; r ajlhqw` ~ ajdelfhv mouv ejstin ejk patro;~ ajllæ oujk ejk mhtrov~: kai; ga; r ajlhqw` ~ ajdelfhv mou: qugavthr patrov~ mouv ejstin,plh;n ouj qugavthr mhtrov~ mou (Gn . – LXX var.) added at end of quest. in C, [ ] (with some variants), Sch. ( ajllæ oujk ejk mhtrov~: kai; ga; r ajlhqw` ~ ouj

qugavthr mhtrov~ mou ) = “the transgression he had committed. ‘Then Abimelech asked Abraham, “What was your purpose in doing this?” And Abraham replied, “I thought, ‘Most likely there is no fear of God in this place and they will kill me for my wife.’ In fact, she really is my sister from the same father but not from the same mother. In fact, she is my sister, daughter of my father, but not of my mother .”’”

a 2 , B, C, [ ] = mss.

1. kaj n touvtwÛ , , Sch. : ka} n touvtwÛ Sir. : ka/ ] n touto F.M. Forkaj n touvtw/, cf. Q. (i{ na th; n ajlhvqeian kaj n touvtw/ skiagrafhvsh/) and for thesame confusion of kaj n and ka] n, cf. F.M., l. , p. and l. , p. .

a. Gn .mmb. Heb .mmc. Gn .mmd. Gn .f.mme. Heb. .mmf. Gn .



and the sin and though leaving it to the wronged man to beg pardon

on Abimelech’s behalf, God kindly accorded him a vision and point-

ed out in mild words the transgression he had committed.1

What was Melchizedek’s ancestry?a

Since the divinely inspired Paul says, “Without father, without

mother, without a family tree,”b who could know for sure? He prob-

ably belonged to those nations that inhabited Palestine, and whiletheir king and priest both, he was also a priest of the God of the uni-

verse. Scripture says, “He was a priest of God the Most High.”c

Hence, the patriarch offered him a tenth of the spoils and, being a

righteous man, a friend of God’s, Abraham gained his blessing.d In

fact, Melchizedek provided a type of the kingly priesthood.e Thus,

he gave Abraham in return both bread and wine, things he was per-

haps in the habit of offering to the God of the universe,f for the type

had to be made manifest in this as well.1

Question

. Theodoret apparently compares the cases of Abimelech (Gn ) andPharaoh (Gn .–) in order to engage in further reflection on the idea of natu-ral law; cf. Q. .

. Guided by Heb .f., Theodoret sees Melchizedek as a type of Christ as wellas a priest of “God Most High.” He is, of course, unaware of the Canaanite originsof this latter term and the unique character of this chapter, whose internationalsetting and unusual style and vocabulary set it apart from all the “establishedsources of Genesis”; v. Speiser, p. . Though Theodoret commends Abraham as

“righteous,” he does not follow Chrysostom (hom. . in Gen.) in pointing outthat the noun “righteousness” (zedek) constitutes the second half of Melchizedek’sname.



Pw'" ∆Abraa;m pisto;" oj nomavzetai,a eijrhkw;" tw' / Qew' /, kata; tiv

gnwvsomai tou' to, o{ti klhronomhvsw aujthvn ;b

To; kata; tiv gnwvsomai tou' to, oujk ajpistou' ntov" ejstin, ajlla;

maqei' n poqou' nto" th'" klhronomiva" to; n trovpon. ejpeidh; ga;r

eJwvra plhvqh muriva th; n Palaistiv nhn oijkou' nta, maqei' n hjboulhvqh

tiv ni trovpw/ paralhv yetai th'" gh'" ejkeiv nh" th; n despoteivan:

polevmou novmw/, div ca polevmou, zwv ntwn ejkeiv nwn, aj nairoumev nwn,

ejxelaunomev nwn. touvtou cavrin meta; th; n qusivan oJ tw' n o{lwn e[ fhQeov", ginwvskwn gnwvsh/ o{ti pav roikon e[stai to; spev rma sou ejn

gh' / oujk ijdiva/, kai; doulwvsousin aujtouv", kai; kakwvsousin aujtouv",

kai; tapeinwvsousin .......e[th tetrakovsia. to; de; e[qno" w | / eja;n

douleuvswsi krinw' ejgwv: meta; de; tau' ta ejxeleuvsontai w |de meta;

ajposkeuh' " pollh' ". su; de; ajpeleuvsei pro;" tou;" patev ra" sou ejn

eij rhvnh/, trafei;" ejn ghv rei kalw' /. tetav rth/ de; genea' /

ajpostrafhvsontai w |de: ou[pw ga; r ajnapeplhv rwntai aiJ aJ martivaitw' n aj morraivwn e{w" tou' nu' n.c

jEk th'" qeiva" ajpokrivsew" e[sti gnw' nai to; n trovpon th'"

ejrwthvsew". ejpeidh; ga;r ei\pe, kata; tiv gnwvsomai o{ti

klhronomhvsw aujthvn, ejdidav cqh o{son me; n paroikhvsousi crov non,

kai; o{pw" talaipwrhvsousin, o{sh" te ajxiwqhvsontai promhqeiva":

tw' n me; n polemhvsein ejqelov ntwn aujtoi'" kolasqhsomev nwn,

touvtwn de; ta; ejkeiv nwn karpwsamev nwn: kai; o{ti, touvtwn aujto;"oujdemivan pei'ran labwv n, ej n eijrhv nh/ kataluvsei to; n bivon.

jEdivdaxe de; kai; th'" aj nabolh'" th; n aijtivan i{ na mhv ti"

topavsh/ dia; to; plh'qo" tw' n ej noikouv ntwn mh; dunhqh' nai to; n

despovthn Qeo; n th'" gh'" aujtoi'" ejkeiv nh" paradou' nai th; n


A –2c , B, C, [ ] = mss.

a. Cf. Rom .–.mmb. Gn .mmc. Gn .–mm



How can Abraham be called “faithful”a when he asked God,

“How am I to know that I shall inherit the land?”b

The question, “How am I to know?” comes not from one who

lacks belief but from one anxious to learn the manner of inheri-

tance. Since he saw the countless hordes occupying Palestine, he

wanted to know how he was to take possession of that land: by

fighting or without fighting, leaving them alive, killing them, or

driving them out. Therefore, after the sacrifice, the God of the uni-verse declared,“You will know this for certain: Your offspring will be

aliens in a land that is not theirs. They will enslave, afflict, and op-

press them for four hundred years. But I shall bring judgment on

the nation to whom they are enslaved, and afterwards they will es-

cape to this place with many possessions. But you will go to your fa-

thers in peace, nourished to a fine old age. 1 They will return here in

the fourth generation; at present, the sins of the Amorites are not yet complete.”c

We can determine the manner of the enquiry from God’s reply.

After asking, “How am I to know that I shall inherit it?” he was in-

formed of the duration of their time as aliens; the way they would

suffer; the degree of providential assistance they would receive when

those bent on warring against them would be punished, and they

would enter into the enjoyment of their property; and, last of all,that he himself would experience none of this but end his life in

peace.

He also informed him of the reason for the delay, in case anyone

should think that the Lord God could not give them control of the

land because it was so thickly populated. He declared, “At present,

Question

. For “nourished,” trafeiv", the reading of Theodoret’s text of Genesis, otherforms of the LXX read “buried,” tafeiv"; this is the meaning of the Hebrew.



a{per oJ patriavrch" ejk tw' n iJ ereivwn ejxhvlaune, th; n fonikh; n tw' n

aijguptivwn proh/ nivtteto gnwvmhn,e h} n a[prakton ajpev fhnen oJ

despovth" Qeov", ta;" pro;" to; n ∆Abraa;m ejmpedw' n uJposcevsei":

w{sper ga;r ej n tw' / tuvpw/ tou;" sarkobovrou" o[rnei" ejxhvlaunen∆Abraavm, ou{tw" hJ timh; tou' ∆Abraa;m tou;" aijguptivou" ejkovlase.

to; de; peri; hJlivou dusma;" oj fqh' nai to; n kapnizovmenon klivbanon

kai; ta;" tou' puro;" lampavda" ejdhvlou me; n kai; to; decqh' nai ta;

quvmata,f proeshvmaine de; kai; th; n para; to; tevlo" tou'

prorrhqev nto" crov nou ejsomev nhn ejpifav neian tou' tw' n o{lwn

Qeou': dia; puro;" ga;r ejpefav nh kai; Mwu>sh' / tw' / nomoqevth/g kai;

meta; tau'ta panti; tw' / law' /.h

|| ejdivdaske de; pro;" touvtoi" kai; o{titau'ta u{steron nomoqethvsei ta; zw' /a prosfevresqai.i

Tine;" dev fasin o{ti bebaivan dei'xai boulovmeno" th; n

uJpovscesin, oJ Qeo;" kata; to; kratou' n e[qo" ejpoihvsato ta;"

sunqhvka": eijwvqasi gavr, w{" fasi, dich' ta; iJ erei'a diairou' nte",

ou{tw poiei'sqai tou;" o{rkou". ejgw; de; kai; tau'ta kajkei' na

tevqeika i{ na to; dokou' n ajlhqevsteron oiJ ej ntugcav nonte"

devxwntai.

Polloi; tw' n ajkolavstwn aj formh; n eij" lagneivan lambav nousi

to; n patriavrchn ∆Abraa;m pallakh; n ejschkev nai.a

{Ekaston tw' n prattomev nwn ejk tou' skopou' kriv netai tw' n

diaprattomev nwn. ou{tw toiv nun kai; ta; kata; th; n [Agarskophvswmen, ka] n ejpiqumiva/ dedouleukovta to; n patriavrchn

i[dwmen, nemeshto; n to; pra'gma kalevswmen. eij de; th'" oJmozuvgou

th'" fuvsew" ejpideixavsh" to; pavqo", kai; to; n poihth; n a[gonon


e. Gn .mmf. Gn .mmg. Ex .–mmh. Ex .–mmi. V., e.g., Lv .–; Nm .–.

A, B, C, [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .–mm

||41



The birds that flew onto the divided carcasses, and which the patri-

arch drove off from the offerings, presaged the murderous intention

of the Egyptians,e which the Lord God brought to naught in his

guarantee of the promises to Abraham. As Abraham drove off thescavengers in the type, so it was God’s regard for Abraham that led

to the punishment of the Egyptians. The vision at sunset of the

smoking pan and the fiery torches showed the acceptance of the of-

feringsf and foreshadowed the appearance of the God of the uni-

verse that would occur at the end of the prophesied time, for he ap-

peared in fire to Moses the lawgiverg and later to all the people.h In

addition, it taught that, at some later date, God would prescribe theoffering of these animals.i

Now, some commentators have held that, in his wish to bring out

the reliability of the promise, he made the treaty according to the

prevailing practice, since people normally divided victims in two (so

they claim) to take an oath. I cite this view and the other for readers

to take whichever strikes them as closer to the truth.

As an excuse for their own lust many licentious people adduce

the example of the patriarch Abraham, who kept a concubine.a

Every act is to be judged according to the intention of those who

perform it. Therefore, let us consider the case of Hagar, and if weshould see the patriarch in thrall to lust, we shall brand his conduct

as reprehensible. But if his wife pointed out her natural infirmity,

admitted that the Creator had made her barren, revealed her own

Question



dedhmiourghkev nai th; n mhvtran eijrhkuiva", kai; th'" paidopoiiva"

dhlwsavsh" to; n povqon, kai; touvtou cavrin iJketeusavsh" oJmilh'sai

th' Û [Agar, i{ na aujth' / paidivon ejkei'qen ejpinohvsh/, tiv ejxhvmarten

∆Abraavm, ou[te th'" fuvsew" ou[te novmou tino;" ejggrav fouthnikau'ta th; n polugamivan kwluvonto", th'" de; oJmozuvgou

steriv fh" me; n ou[sh", liparhsavsh" de; to; n a[ ndra th' / paidivskh/

migh' nai, ouj c i{ na hJdupaqeiva/ douleuvsh/, ajllæ o{pw" aujto;" me; n

fuvsei, aujth; de; qevsei, paivdwn klhqw'si gennhvtore";

{ Oti ga;r kreivttwn h\ n aijscra'" hJdonh'" oJ qei'o" ejkei' no"

aj nhvr, ouj mov non tau'ta, ajlla; kai; ta; eJxh'" marturei'. ejpeidh; ga;r

ejgkuvmwn hJ [Agar genomev nh megalauciva" prov fasin e[sce th; nkuv hsin kai; kata; th'" despoiv nh" ejluvtthsen, ejduscevraine me; n hJ

Savrra kai; tou' patriavrcou katebov hsen oujk ojrqw'".b oJ de; mavla

hjpivw" th; n paroinivan dexavmeno", ejxevdwken aujth' / th; n paidivskhn

eij" timwrivan, oujde; tecqh' nai prosmeiv na" to; kuoforouvmenon

brev fo": ijdouv, gavr fhsin, hJ paidivskh sou ejn tai' " cersiv sou:

crw' aujth' / wJ" ejavn soi aj resto;n h\ /.c

Tiv dhv pote peritmhqh' nai aujto; n prosevtaxen oJ Qeov";a

Proeipw; n th; n paroikivan,b fulakhv n tina mhcana'tai th' /

eujsebeiva/ i{ na, toi'" dussebevsin aj nqrwvpoi" aj namigev nte", mh;

diafqeivrwsi th; n eujgev neian, ajllæ eij" to; shmei'on oJrw' nte",

a[sbeston tou' dedwkovto" tou'to th; n mnhvmhn fulavttwsi. kai;o{ti tou'tov ejstin ajlhqe;" hJ e[rhmo" mavrtu": tessaravkonta ga;r

crov nou" ej n aujth' / diatriv yante", peritth; n ej novmizon th; n

peritomhv n, tw' n ejqnw' n kecwrismev noi kai; kaqæ eJautou;"

politeuovmenoi. hJ nivka de; loipo; n eij" th; n ejphggelmev nhn


b. Gn .f.mmc. Gn .

A, B, C, (inc.) (inc.) [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .–mmb. Gn .mm



desire for a child, and implored him to have relations with Hagar so

that she might reckon that woman’s child as her own, what sin did

Abraham commit? Neither nature nor any law promulgated at that

time forbade polygamy, and his wife was barren and importunedher husband to have intercourse with the servant girl, not so that he

would become a slave to lust, but so they could be called parents, he

naturally, and she by adoption.

Moreover, what happens next confirms that that holy man was

proof against dishonorable pleasure. As you recall, when Hagar con-

ceived, she made her pregnancy a ground for boasting and behavedinsolently towards her mistress Sarah, who became upset and un-

justly complained against the patriarch.b But he took her unreason-

able behavior very patiently and handed the servant girl over to her

for punishment without even waiting for the birth of the child in

her womb: “See,” he said, “the servant girl is in your hands. Treat her

as you please.”1c

Why did God order Abraham to be circumcised?a

When he foretold the exile,b he devised a protection for their reli-

gion so that, when mingling with pagans, they would not contami-

nate their noble descent, but rather, looking to the sign, keep an

undying memory of the one who had conferred it. The account of their wanderings confirms this. They spent forty years in the wilder-

ness and thought circumcision pointless, since they were cut off

from the nations and living a life apart. But when they later entered

the promised land, the God of the universe ordered Joshua son of

Question

. Theodoret, taking the line of interpretation already suggested by Chrysostom(hom. . in Gen.), regards the central issue in .– as the morality of Abraham’s

conduct. As he points out, the attack against Abraham is anachronistic, because thepatriarchs lived in a society that countenanced polygamy. While his behavior wasentirely reasonable, that of his wife and maidservant was flawed by outbursts of



eijshvgonto gh' n, thnikau'ta pavlin oJ tw' n o{lwn Qeo;" ∆Ihsou' tw' /

tou' Nauh' |prosevtaxe peritemei' n a{panta" kai; ou{tw th'" gh'"

paradou' nai th; n despoteivan:c e[mellon ga;r e[qnesin ajllofuvloi"

pelavzein, ou | dh; cavrin aj nagkaivw" th'" sfragi'do" ejdevonto, th'"ajpo; tw' n ajllogenw' n aujtou;" cwrizouvsh" ejqnw' n.

Eij de; mevga fronou'sin ejpi; th' / peritomh' / ijoudai'oi, maqevtwsan

wJ" ouj mov no" oJ patriavrch" perietmhvqh, ajlla; kai; ∆Ismah;l oJ

hJmivdoulo", kai; oiJ oijkogenei'" oijkevtai, kai; oiJ ajrgurwv nhtoi,d kai;

oiJ ijdoumai'oi,e kai; oiJ ajpo; th'" Cettouvra":f e[maqon de; ejk tw' n

ijsrahlitw' n kai; aijguvptioi peritevmnesqai.g ouj toiv nun hJ

peritomh; dikaivou" ejrgavzetai: ou |toi ga;r a{pante" wJ"dussebei'" uJpo; th'" qeiva" kathgorou' ntai grafh'". oujkou' n oujde;

to; n|| ∆Abraa;m hJ peritomh; ejdikaivwsen, ajllæ hJ me; n pivsti"

ajpev fhne divkaion,h lamprovteron de; hJ ajreth; kateskeuvasen. hJ

de; peritomh; shmei'on ejdovqh th'" pivstew".


|13

||4

c. Jos .–mmd. Gn .–mme. Jer .f.mmf. Gn .–mmg. Jer .f.mmh. Gn .



Nun to circumcise all the men before handing over ownership of

the land.1c They were destined to come into close proximity with the

gentiles and hence were in need of a seal that would distinguish

them from peoples of foreign lineage.

Now, if Jews make so much of their circumcision, they should

learn that it was not only the patriarch who was circumcised but

also Ishmael, a half-slave, as well as the homeborn slaves, the pur-

chased slaves,d the Idumeans,e and the offspring of Keturah.f Even

the Egyptians learned circumcision from the Israelites.g And cir-

cumcision did not have the effect of making them righteous, sinceholy Scripture condemns all these peoples as godless. Therefore, it

was not circumcision that justified Abraham; faith made him right-

eous,h and virtue rendered him still more illustrious. Circumcision

was given as a sign of faith.2

Question

selfish emotion. Yet this defense of Abraham is equally anachronistic, as it is con-cerned to make Abraham’s conduct conform, as much as possible, to a Christianideal of a much later era. Speiser (p. ) highlights rather the skill of the Hebrew storyteller who, after concentrating on the broader issue of the successor to Abra-ham in ch. , in this episode focuses on the individuals with their conflictingrights, desires, and emotions. He adduces (pp. –) parallels from Mesopotami-an legal documents for the provision of a concubine for the purpose of producing

children in cases where the wife should prove barren.

. Theodoret rightly notes that, according to the biblical narrative, circumci-sion was overlooked in the wilderness years and reinstituted by Joshua. Neverthe-less, he does not see that the account of God’s original decree in Gn .–, whichseems to emphasize the value of circumcision as a sign in the days of Abraham,was actually informed by the concerns of priestly authors writing during the Exilewhen national symbols of identity were lacking; v. von Rad, ad loc.

. Though always ready to concede Jewish privileges in the era of the old dis-pensation, Theodoret follows Paul’s argument in Rom f. and promotes faith over

circumcision as the key factor in achieving righteousness. In a way typical of theAntiochenes, he also emphasises virtuous behavior. The issue of circumcision willbe raised again in Q. on Ex.



JH qeiva levgei grafh; o{ti e[ fagon oiJ a[ggeloi ej n th' / skhnh' /

tou' ∆Abraavm.a

Kai; hJ aujth; levgei grafh; o{ti a[ ndra" ei\den ∆Abraavm.b eij

toiv nun gumnw' / prosektevon tw' / gravmmati, a[ ndre", oujk a[ggeloi,

e[ fagon. eij de; to; n nou' n aj naptuvsswmen, wJ" w[ fqhsan, e[ fagon:

w{sper gavr, ajswvmaton e[ conte" fuvsin kai; aujtoi; kai; oJ touvtwn

despovth", swvmata e[ cein e[doxan: ou{tw" ga;r eJwravqhsan: ou{tw"

ejsqivonte" w[ fqhsan, ouj stovmati kai; gastri; th; n trofh; nprosenegkov nte": ou[te ga;r ei\ con swvmata: aj nalwvsante" de;

aujth; n wJ" hjqevlhsan. aj noiva" ga;r ejscavth" to; polupragmonh'sai

tw' n ajrrhvtwn to; n trovpon.

Dia; tiv oJ Lw;t oujk ej neklhvqh, tai'" qugatravsi migeiv";a

jEpeidh; toi'" ejx ajgnoiva" plhmmeloumev noi" kai; oiJ a[ nqrwpoi

sugginwvskein eijwvqasin. ouj toiv nun oujde; tw' / Lw;t ejpimevmyaito

a[ n ti" dikaivw" th'" mivxew" e{ neka: hjgnov ei ga;r to; prattovmenon.

to; de; th'" mevqh" e[ cei tina; mevmyin kekramev nhn suggnwvmh/:

ajdhmonw' n ga;r komidh' / kai; ajluvwn, wJ" pav ntwn oJmou' tw' n o[ ntwn

gegumnwmev no" kai; pro;" toi'" a[lloi" a{pasi kai; aujth'" th'"

oJmozuvgou,b hj nevsceto tw' n qugatevrwn to; n oi\ non prosferousw' n


A, B, C –50 , [ ] = mss.

a. Gn .mmb. Gn .

A [ ], B, C, (inc.) = mss.

a. Gn .–mmb. Gn .mm



Holy Scripture declares that angels ate in Abraham’s tent.a

The same passage of Scripture says that Abraham had a vision of

men.b If we must attend to the mere letter of the text, it was men,

not angels, who ate. But if we are to unfold the meaning, they ate in

the same form in which they had appeared. In other words, as they

were incorporeal beings—they and their Lord—and yet seemed to

have bodies (for that is how they appeared), so they seemed to eat.Not that they put food into their mouths and stomachs, for they

were incorporeal. Rather, they consumed it as they wished. Only the

worst fool would try to pry further into the ways and means of a

holy mystery.1

Why did Lot incur no censure for having relations with his

daughters?a

Because people normally make allowances for those who trans-

gress in ignorance. So you would not be right to blame Lot for this

intercourse, as he was unaware of what he was doing. The fact of in-

toxication involves some blame tempered with pardon. Severely dis-tressed and beside himself after losing everything all at once, espe-

cially his wife,b he did not resist when his daughters brought him

Question

. Theodoret employs this question to resolve two difficulties. First, there is theidentity of Abraham’s guests. In Gn .f., the LXX recounts that God appeared toAbraham and then mentions three men (a[ ndre"); two of these become angels(a[ggeloi) in .. Second, these naturally incorporeal beings are seen to take food.Theodoret’s treatment of the second issue is very similar to Theodore of Mopsues-tia’s explanation of how the angelic visitants partook of Lot’s hospitality in .

(Fragg. in Gen., ad loc.); the question had exercised the ingenuity of Jewish as wellas Christian expositors (v. von Rad, on .–) and Theodoret will take it up againin Q. . on Jgs.



peraitevrw th'" creiva", a{te dh; to; me; n kataskeuazovmenon

ajgnow' n, yucagwgivan de; kai; paramuqivan to; drwvmenon

uJpopteuvwn.

jEkei' nai de; pantavpasiv n eijsin kathgoriva" ajqw' /oi:qeasavmenai ga;r ta;" me; n tevssara" povlei" kai; ta;" kwvma"

aJpavsa" ejmprhsqeivsa" tw' / uJ etw' / tou' purov", tou;" de; th; n Shgw;r

oijkou' nta" katapoqev nta":c tou'to ga;r shmaiv nei kai; tou[ noma:

katavposi" ga;r hJ Shgw;r eJrmhneuv etai: ej novmisan a[rdhn

ajpolwlev nai tw' n aj nqrwvpwn th; n fuvsin.d kai; th; n katev cousan

ejrhmivan oJrw'sai kai; tou' ghvrw" proqewrhvsasai th; n ajsqev neian,

hjboulhvqhsan ejpinoh'sai kai; spevrma tw' / gev nei kai; eJautai'" yugagwgivan tinav.|| touvtw/ crhsavmenai tw' / logismw' / kai; oujk

ejpiqumiva/ douleuvsasai, to; n me; n oi\ non e[labon sunergov n,

e[kleyan de; th' / pleivoni povsei tou' gegennhkovto" th; n ai[sqhsin,

ajpev fhnan de; to; n patevra sporeva.

Tiv dhv pote oJ Qeo;" oujk ejkwvluse th; n parav nomon mivxin;a

Proewvra th; n tou' gev nou" ajsevbeian: mwabi'tai me; n ga;r

ejdouvleuon tw' / Camw'", tw' / de; Melcw;m ajmmani'tai.b i{ na ou\ n mhv,

wJ" suggenevsin ejpimignuvmenoi touvtoi", oiJ ijsrahli'tai

metavscwsi th'" ajsebeiva", oujk ejkwvluse to; n parav nomon gavmon

o{pw" tauvth/ gou' n aujtou;" musarou;" ajpofhv nh/ kai; bdeluktou;"

ijoudaivoi". dhloi' de; tou'to kai; oJ tw' n o{lwn Qeov", dia; Mwu>sevw"tou' nomoqevtou diagoreuvwn, aj mmanivth" kai; mwabivth" oujk

eijseleuvsetai eij" ejkklhsivan Kurivou e{w" dekavth" genea' " kai;

e{w" eij" to;n aijw' na.c


||20

c. Gn .f.mmd. Gn .

A [ ], B, C, = mss.

a. Gn .–mmb. Gn .f.; v., e.g., Nm .; Kgs .mmc. Dt .



more wine than necessary. He was ignorant of their scheme and

presumed they were trying to comfort and console him.1

They, as well, were entirely beyond accusation. Having seen thefour cities and all the towns incinerated by the rain of fire, and all

the inhabitants of Segor swallowed upc (this is the import of the

name, for “Segor” means “swallowing up.”),2 they presumed that the

whole human race had perished.d Seeing the desolation everywhere

and observing the old man’s debility, they formed the intention of

continuing the race and giving themselves some comfort. With this

plan in mind, and not because they were enthralled to lust, they en-listed the help of the wine to beguile their parent’s senses with exces-

sive drink and thus brought their father to beget children.

Why did God not intervene to prevent the unlawful intercourse?a

He foresaw the idolatry of their offspring, for the Moabites served

Chemosh and the Ammonites Moloch.b Thus, he did not prevent

the unlawful union to make them defiled and abominable in the

eyes of the Jews, so the Israelites would not intermarry with these

kindred peoples and participate in their idolatry. The God of the

universe revealed his intention when he declared through Moses thelawgiver, “Neither Ammonite nor Moabite shall enter the assembly

of the Lord to the tenth generation and forever.”c

Question

. An incident (Gn .–) originally intended to provide a discreditable aeti-ology for the Moabites and Ammonites is for Theodoret primarily a moral conun-drum. Here, as in his commentary on the Song of Songs, he deals with sexual is-sues in a manner free of prudery. To his credit, he explains this passage in such a

way that, in the words of his modern counterpart Speiser (p.

), “All of this addsup to praise rather than blame.”. The Hebrew name of the town is Zoar, which in . is explained by popular



jWmo; n a[gan ei\ nai dokei' to; nevon o[ nta to; n ∆Ismah;l

ejxelaqh' nai th'" patrikh'" oijkiva" meta; mov nh" th'" mhtro;" kai;

tou' ajskou' tou' u{dato".a

Kai; tou'to a[ ntikru" deivknusi th; n tou' ∆Abraa;m ajrethv n. th'"

me; n ga;r Savrra" eijrhkuiva", e[kbale th;n paidivskhn .......kai; to;n

uiJo;n aujth' ",b ouj c uJphvkouse: tou' de; Qeou' keleuvsanto", eujqu;"

tw' / lovgw/ to; e[rgon ejpevqhke, kai; tau'ta filostovrgw" peri; to; n

∆Ismah;l diakeivmeno". kai; ga;r hJ nivka th; n ejk th'" Savrra"paidopoiivan oJ Qeo;" ejphggeivlato, aujto;" e[ fh, ∆Ismah;l ou |to"

zhvtw ejnantivon sou c ajllæ o{mw", kai; stevrgwn komidh' / to;

paidivon, pepoiv hken o{per oJ despovth" prosevtaxen. ou{tw de;

tai'" qeivai" ejpaggelivai" pepivsteuken o{ti, ouj pai'da", ouj

paidivska", ouj crusov n, oujk a[rguron dedwkwv", ajpevluse th'"

oijkiva" to; paidivon, ajllæ a[rtou" ojlivgou", kai; ajsko; n u{dato", kai;

th; n mhtevra: h[ /dei ga;r wJ" aj yeudh;" hJ tou' prostetacovto" uJpovscesi".

JUpevsceto de; aujtw' / oJ Qeo;" eij" e[qno" mevga poihvsein aujtov n,

a{te dh; th'" aujtou' gewrgiva" hjxiwmev non.d o} dh; kai; peplhvrwken:

a{ma ga;r e[klause to; paidivon, povmato" ej fievmenon, kai; a[ggelo"

qeovqen ajpostalei;" frevar uJpevdeixe potivmou u{dato" plh're".e

o{ti de; kai; th'" paidopoiiva" to; plh'qo" devdwken, wJ" uJpevsceto,

marturei' ta; oJrwvmena: ajpo; ga;r tw' n o{rwn Aijguvptou mev cri

Babulw' no" tou'de tou' gev nou" hJ e[rhmo" plhvrh".

J O mev ntoi ∆Abraa;m kai; toi'" tovpoi" ejk th'" eujsebeiva"

ejpitevqeike ta; oj novmata: futeuvsa" ga;r a[rouran ejpi; tw' / frevati

tou' o{rkou, ejpekalevsato to; o[ noma tou' tovpou ejkeiv nou Qeo;"

aijwvnio".f


A [ ], B, C , = mss.

a. Gn .mmb. Gn .mmc. Gn .mmd. Gn .mme. Gn .–mmf. Gn .



The expulsion of Ishmael as a child from his father’s home with

just his mother and a flask of water seems very harsh.a

On the contrary, it brings out Abraham’s virtue. He did not obey

Sarah when she told him to “throw out the servant girl and her

son.”b But when God gave the order, he immediately put that word

into effect, despite his fondness for Ishmael. Indeed, when God

promised that Sarah would have a child, he said, “May Ishmael herelive in your sight.”c Yet, though he loved the child, he did what the

Lord commanded. Now, this was how he expressed his trust in the

divine promises: he sent the child away without servants, maidser-

vants, gold, or silver, but with just a few loaves, a flask of water, and

his mother, for he knew he could trust the promise of the one who

had laid this order upon him.

God had promised to make a mighty nation of Ishmael, one

whom he deemed worthy of his care.d And he did just that. As soon

as the child, in his longing to drink, burst into tears, an angel sent by

God showed him a well full of drinking water.e Now, the evidence

confirms that he also gave him a vast number of offspring; the

desert is full of this race from the borders of Egypt to Babylon.

Note how Abraham’s toponyms reflected his piety. After planting

a field at the well of the oath, he named the place “God Eternal.”f

Question

etymology as “the little” town. The septuagintal rendition Shgwvr is the translitera-tion of a Hebrew stem meaning “to close up” or “to close in on”; it is at . that the

LXX offer the alternative name Bavlak, a transliteration of the Hebrew stem “toswallow up.” Theodoret is not in a position to critique the Hebrew etymologies of his sources.



Eij pav nta oJ Qeo;" proginwvskei, tiv no" cavrin to; n ∆Abraa;m

ejpeivrase;a

Ouj c i{ na aujto;" a{per hjpivstato mavqh/, ajllæ i{ na tou;"

ajgnoou' nta" didavxh/ wJ" mavla dikaivw" to; n patriavrchn hjgavphse.

touvtou cavrin ej n trisi; n hJmevrai" kai; tosauvtai" nuxi; to; n qei'on

ejbasav nize povqon:b mevso" ga;r w] n oJ patriavrch" fuvsewv" te kai;

pivstew" kai; nuttovmeno" eJkatevrwqen, e[dwke th' / pivstei ta;

nikhthvria. oJ de; Qeov~, deivxa" aujtou' th; n eujsevbeian, th; n qusivan ejkwvlusen.c

J O ga;r kai; ta;" tw' n ajlovgwn ajpagoreuvwn qusiva", pw'" a] n

toiauvth" iJ erourgiva" hj nevsceto; tou'to ga;r ijoudaivwn kathgorw' n

dietevlese kai; dia; me; n Dabi;d tou' profhvtou boa' /, e[qusan tou;"

uiJou;" aujtw' n kai; ta;" qugatev ra" aujtw' n toi' " daimonivoi" kai;

ejxev cean ai | ma ajqw' /on, ai | ma uiJw' n aujtw' n kai; qugatev rwn, w |n

e[qusan toi' " gluptoi' " Canaavn:d

dia; de; tou' ∆Iezekihvl, kai;e[labe" tou;" uiJouv" sou kai; ta;" qugatev ra" sou, ou}" ejgevnnhsav"

moi,e kai; proshv negka" aujtou;" toi'" ejrastai'" sou: ei\ta

deiknu;" th; n th'" ajtopiva" uJperbolhv n, ejphvgage tou'to: para;

pa' san th;n porneivan sou.f oJ toiv nun tw' n tau'ta tolmwv ntwn

kathgorw' n pw'" a] n aujto;" hj nevsceto devxasqai pai'da monogenh',

para; patro;" prosferovmenon;

jAlla; ga;r tau'ta skia; h\ n th'" uJpe;r hJmw' n gegenhmev nh"

oijkonomiva". uJpe;r ga;r th'" oijkoumev nh" to; n ajgaphto; n uiJo; n oJ

path;r prosenhv noce:g tuvpo" ga;r th'" me; n qeovthto" oJ ∆Isaavk,

th'" de; aj nqrwpovthto" oJ kriov". kai; aujto;" de; oJ crov no" ijsavriq-

mo": trei'" ga;r hJmevrai kai; trei'" nuvkte" kai; ej ntau'qa kajkei'.


A [ ], B, C, = mss.

a. Gn .–mmb. Gn .mmc. Gn .–mmd. Ps .f.mme. Ezek .mmf. Ezek .mmg. Cf. Mt ..



If God knows everything in advance, why did he put Abraham to

the test?a

Not to learn what he already knew, but to teach the ignorant that

he had good reason to love the patriarch. That was why he tested his

love of God for three days and nights.b The patriarch, torn between

nature and faith and pulled both ways, decided in favor of faith.

Having brought out his devotion, God stopped the sacrifice.c

After all, how could he who forbade sacrifices of brute beasts

have tolerated such a rite? In fact, this is a charge he often laid

against the Jews, as, for example, when he proclaimed through the

prophet David, “They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to

the demons and poured out innocent blood, blood of their sons and

daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan”;d

and alsothrough Ezekiel, “You took your sons and your daughters, whom

you bore me,e and offered them to your lovers.” Then to bring out

the depth of their wickedness, he added, “This is worse than all your

licentiousness.”f If he laid charges against people who committed

this crime, how could he have accepted a father’s offering of his

only-begotten son?

No, this was a shadow of the divine plan implemented for ourbenefit; for the sake of the world, the Father offered his beloved

Son.g Isaac was a type of the divinity, the ram of the humanity. The

actual time was also of equal length: three days and three nights in

both cases.

Question



Tiv ejsti qe;" th;n cei' rav sou ejpi; to;n mhrovn mou ; a

() ∆Epi; gavmon ajpevstellen tw' n oijketw' n to; n hJgouvmenon,

ejpavraton me; n ejpistavmeno" tou' Canaa; n to; gev no",b eujlogiva"

de; hjxiwmev nhn th; n oijkeivan suggev neian.c ejpeidh; toiv nun ej n tw' /

spevrmati kai; th; n eujlogivan kai; th; n tw' n ajgaqw' n ejpaggelivan

ejdevxato, ejkei' qei' nai to; n pai'da th; n cei'ra prosevtaxen, e[ nqa

kai; th'" pivstew" to; shmei'on ejdevxato: pisteuvsa" ga;r tai'"

qeivai" ejpaggelivai", e[labe th'" peritomh'" th; n sfragi'da.d ejkei'de; qei' nai th; n cei'ra prosevtaxen i{ na, kai; th'" qeiva"

ejpaggeliva" kai; th'" peritomh'" memnhmev no", ajllofuvlw/ gavmw/

th; n despotikh; n eujgev neian mh; lwbhvshtai. ijstevon de; wJ" hJ me; n

cei;r uJpo; to; n mhro; n ejtevqh, oJ de; o{rko" kata; tou' Qeou' tw' n

o{lwn ejgev neto: ejxorkivzw se, ga;r e[ fh, Kuv rion to;n Qeo;n tou'

ouj ranou' .......kai; th' " gh' " i{na mh; lav bh/" gunai' ka tw' / uiJw' / mou

∆Isaa;k ajpo; tw' n qugatev rwn tw' n cananaivwn, meqæ w |n ejgw; oijkw' ejn aujtoi' ", kai; ta; eJxh'".e

Sofwtavth de; a[gan kai; tou' paido;" hJ ejrwvthsi". deivsa" ga;r

to; n o{rkon, dhvlou" aujtw' / genevsqai parekavlei tou' gavmou tou;"

o{rou"∑ eij, gavr fhsi, mh; e{loito ej ntau'qa ejlqei' n hJ mnhsteuomev nh

kovrh ajlla; pro;" aujth; n ajpelqei' n to; n mnhsth'ra keleuv ei,

prostavttei" to; n uiJo; n eij" ejkei' no to; e[qno" ejpanelqei' n; ajllæ oJ

patriavrch" ∆Abraavm, eijdw;" wJ" ejkei'qen me; n aujto; n hJ qeiva klh'si"

ejxhvgage,f peri; de; tou' gavmou novmon oujk ejdevxato qei'on: aujto;"

dev, wJ" eujsebeiva/ sunteqrammev no", hjqevlhsen ejk th'" suggenikh'"

oijkiva" tw' / paidi; kategguh'sai gunai'ka: ejkei' no me; n ajpagoreuv ei

genevsqai, a{te dh; qeivw/ novmw/ kekwlumev non, tou'to de; th' / qeiva/

ejgceirivzei khdemoniva/. tauvth/ qarrhvsa", oJ pai'" ejxedhvmhsen.


A [ ], B, c, * * , = mss.

a. Gn .mmb. Gn .mmc. Gn .f.mmd. Gn .–mme. Gn .mmf. Gn .mm



What is the meaning of “Put your hand on my thigh”?a

() He sent his head servant to arrange a marriage, as he knew

that the race of Canaan was under a curse,b and his own kindred

had been granted a blessing.c So, since in his seed he had received

both the blessing and the promise of good things, he ordered the

servant to put his hand in the place where he had also received the

sign of faith. Remember that when he had believed in the divine

promise, he was given the seal of circumcision.d He ordered him toplace his hand there so that, mindful of the divine promise and cir-

cumcision, he would not besmirch his master’s nobility with a for-

eign marriage. Now, you should understand that he placed his hand

under the thigh, but he was made to swear by the God of the uni-

verse: “I adjure you by the Lord, the God of heaven and earth, not to

get a wife for my son Isaac from the daughters of the Canaanites

among whom I live” and so on.e

The servant’s question was a very wise one. In awe of his oath, he

required a clear statement of the conditions of the marriage: “If the

betrothed maiden should not choose to come here but ask the suitor

to come to her, is it your instruction that your son go back to that

nation?” The patriarch Abraham knew that the divine summons had

brought him out from there,f yet he had not received a divine direc-

tive regarding the marriage. Nevertheless, as one who had been

nourished in right religion, he wanted to betroth to his son a woman

from his family line. So he forbade Isaac’s return as something pro-

hibited by God’s law, but entrusted his betrothal to divine provi-

dence.1 And with trust in providence the servant took his leave.

Question

. Abraham forbade the marriage of Isaac to a Canaanite woman but entrustedto the guidance of God the ways and means of Isaac’s marriage to a bride from hisown family line.



() ∆Ekeiv nhn de; th; n euj ch; n ouj sumbolikw'" prosenhv nocen, w{"

tine" tw' n a[gan hjliqivwn uJpevlabon, ajllæ, ejpeidh; to; n Qeo; n

sunergo; n e[labe th'" mnhsteiva", shmei'av tina aujtw' / deicqh' nai

parekavlei, diæ w | n hjbouvleto gnw' nai eij ajrevskousa tw' / Qew' / hJmnhsteiva. to; de; shmei'on h\ n, ouj c w{ra swvmato", oujde;

perifav neia gev nou", oujde; a[llo ti tw' n dokouv ntwn lamprw' n,

ajlla; filoxeniva, kai; filofrosuv nh, kai; hjpiovth" fronhvmato":

e[stai, gavr fhsin, hJ parqevno" h | / a]n ejgw; ei[pw, ejpivklinovn moi

th;n uJdrivan sou i{na pivw, kai; ei[ph/ moi, pive, kuv rie, kai; ta;"

kamhvlou" sou potiw' e{w" a]n pauvswntai pivnousai, tauvthn

hJtoiv masa" tw' / paidiv sou ∆Isaavk, kai; ejn touvtw/ gnwvsomai o{tiejpoivhsa" e[leon meta; tou' kurivou mou ∆Abraav m.g ejpeidh; ga;r

touvtoi" ejkosmei'to toi'" pleonekthvmasi diaferov ntw" oJ

patriavrch", hjboulhvqh kai; th; n nuvmfhn sumbaiv nein tw' / trovpw/

tou' khdestou' i{ na mh; e[rin tina; kai; filoneikivan oJ skopo;" oJ

ej nantivo" ejrgavshtai.

{ Oti de; ouj sumbolika; tau'ta h\ n ajlla; pivstew" kai; eujsebeiva"

dhlwtikav, prw'ton didavskei to; spoudai'on th'" proseuch'",

e[peita to; prosmev nein aujto; n th; n boulh; n tou' Qeou'. tou'to ga;r

hJ qeiva didavskei grafhv: oJ de; a[nqrwpo" katemavnqanen aujth;n

kai; paresiwvpa tou' gnw' nai eij eujwvdwke Kuv rio" th;n oJdo;n aujtou'

h] ou[:h ejkeiv nh" ga;r to; u{dwr ajruomev nh" kai; tai'" kamhvloi"

prosferouvsh" to; na'ma, aj nevmenen ou |to" ijdei' n eij pavsai"

parev cei th; n creivan kata; th; n ai[thsin. piousw' n de; tw' n

kamhvlwn, eujqu;" prosenhv noce th'" mnhsteiva" ta; suvmbola.

gnou;" de; to; gev no" kai; th; n despotikh; n suggev neian,i

eujdokhvsa", fhsiv n, oJ a[ nqrwpo" prosekuv nhse tw' / Kurivw/ kai;

ei\pen, eujloghto;" Kuv rio" oJ Qeo;" tou' kurivou mou ∆Abraav m, o}"

oujk ejgkatevlipe th;n dikaiosuvnhn aujtou' kai; to;n e[leon aujtou'

ajpo; tou' kurivou mou, kaj me; ejn oJdw' / h[gage Kuv rio" eij" to;n oi\ kon

tou' ajdelfou' tou' kurivou mou. j kai; pa'sa de; aujtou' hJ diavlexi" to;

eujsebe;" khruvttei th'" gnwvmh" kai; mev ntoi kaiv, meta; th; n


g. Gn .mmh. Gn .mmi. Gn .–mm j. Gn .mm



() Now, it was not in any figurative sense, as some commentators

have quite foolishly imagined, that the servant offered his prayer.

Since he had chosen God to help him in the betrothal, he requested

that he be shown signs by which he might know if the betrothal waspleasing to God.2 The sign was not bodily charm or famous lineage

or anything betokening superficial notoriety, but hospitality, friend-

liness, and a kindly manner: “She will be the maiden to whom I say,

‘Lower your water jar for me to drink,’ and who says, ‘Drink, sir, and

I shall water your camels until they stop drinking’; this is the one

you have prepared for your servant Isaac. By this I shall know that

you have had mercy on my master Abraham.”g

You see, knowing thepatriarch was particularly gifted with these qualities, he wanted the

bride to be suited to the ways of her father-in-law so that no differ-

ence of values would give rise to strife and contention.

The fact that these events were not an allegory but indicative of

faith and devotion emerges first from the earnestness of the prayer

and then from his patient attendance upon the will of God. Holy

Scripture tells us that “the fellow watched her in silence to learn if

the Lord had prospered his journey or not.”h When she was drawing

the water and bringing drink for the camels, he waited to see if she

would provide for all of them as requested. Once the camels had

drunk, he proffered the tokens of betrothal. When he discovered her

family and her relationship to his master’s family,i the fellow was

grateful, as the text says, and, bowing down to the Lord, declared,“Blessed be the Lord, the God of my master Abraham, who has not

forsaken his righteousness and his mercy to my master. The Lord has

led me as well on my way to the house of my master’s brother.” j The

whole of his speech proclaimed his piety, and after that speech, he

Question

. Origen (hom. . in Gen.) had regarded the servant as a representative of

prophecy and his prayer as a revelation of the need of the soul for spiritual refresh-ment from the teaching of Scripture; v. Guinot, p. and cf. Philo, Quaest. in Gen..



diavlexin, to; n aujto; n shmaiv nei skopov n: sunqemev nwn ga;r tw' n th; n

kovrhn gegennhkovtwn tw' / gavmw/, eujqu;" aujto;" prosekuvnhse tw' /

Kurivw/.k kai; ta; eJxh'" de; th'" aujth'" e[ cetai dianoiva": mh;

katev cete gavr me, fhsiv, kai; Kuv rio" eujwvdwse th;n oJdovn mou.l

Dia; tiv tw' n patriarcw' n aiJ gunai'ke" stei'rai; kai; ga;r Savrra

stei'ra,a kai; ÔRebevkka wJsauvtw",b kai; hJ ÔRachvl,c kai; mev ntoi kai;

hJ Leiva: ijdwvn ......., gavr fhsi, Kuv rio" o{ti misei' tai hJ Leiva,ajnevw/xe th;n mhvtran aujth' ".d

To; ijsrahlitiko; n susth'sai gev no" boulhqeiv", oJ Qeo;"

deivknusin, ouj kata; fuvsew" ajkolouqivan, ajlla; kata; th; n th'"

cavrito" filotimivan th; n polugonivan dexavmenon. tauvth" de; th'"

khdemoniva" ejkei' no to; gev no" tetuv chken, ejpeidhvper oJ despovth"

Cristov", oJ monogenh;" tou' Qeou' uiJov", ejkei'qen e[melle kata;

savrka blasthvsein.

Dia; tiv no" maqei' n hjqevlhsen hJ ÔRebevkka ta; peri; tw' n

kuoforoumev nwn paidivwn;a

Tinev" fasi pro;" to; n Melcisede;k aujth; n ajpelhluqev nai, a{te

dh; kai; ajrciereva o[ nta tou' Qeou' tou' uJ yivstou, kai; ejpivshmon ej n eujsebeiva/, kai; livan perifanh'. ejpeidh; de; eijwvqeisan oiJ


k. Gn .mml. Gn .

A [ ], B, c, , = mss.

a. Gn .mmb. Gn .mmc. Gn .mmd. Gn .

A [ ], , C, = mss.

a. Gn .f.



revealed the same mindset. Once the maiden’s parents had agreed to

the marriage, he immediately “worshiped the Lord.” k And his subse-

quent words evinced the same spirit: “Do not delay me, for the Lord

has prospered my journey.”l

Why were the wives of the patriarchs barren? Sarah was barren,a

as were Rebekah,b and Rachel,c and Leah as well. Indeed, Scripture

says, “When the Lord saw that Leah was hated, he opened herwomb.”d

As he willed the development of the Israelite race, God highlights,

not natural increase, but the growth in numbers resulting from grace

liberally bestowed. This race became the object of providential care,

since this was the stock from which Christ the Lord, the only-begot-

ten Son of God, was destined to be born according to the flesh.1

From whom did Rebekah intend to learn about the children in

her womb?a

Some commentators have claimed that she went to Melchizedek,

since he was high priest of God the Most High, conspicuous forpiety, and very famous.1 But given that the patriarchs normally

Question

. In his review of the patriarchal history, Theodoret’s choice of questions oftenreflects moral concerns while he passes without comment over issues of theologi-cal significance, such as Abraham’s calling to a foreign land. In this question, how-ever, Theodoret offers a christological interpretation of the barrenness of the pa-triarchs’ wives.

. Without trying to identify him any further, Chrysostom says (hom. . in Gen.) only that Rebekah went to “the priest, the servant of God” ( to; n iJ ereva to; ntou` qeou` qerapeuvthn).



patriavrcai kai; qusiasthvria tw' / Qew' / kataskeuavzein ej n oi |"

ejskhv noun cwrivoi", eijko;" paræ e} n touvtwn aujth; n ajpelqou'san

iJketeu'sai to; n o{lwn Qeo; n kai; gnwrivsai ta; sumbhsovmena.

Dia; tiv kwluv ei to; n ∆Isaa;k oJ Qeo;" eij" th; n Ai[gupton

ejkdhmh'sai, tou' limou' tou'to pra'xai katanagkavzonto";a

Th; n oijkeivan sofivan te kai; khdemonivan dia; pav ntwn dhloi' oJ

despovth" Qeov". kai; ga;r to; n patriavrchn ∆Abraavm, ouj c wJ"ajporw' n ej n th' / Palaistiv nh/ diaqrev yai, sunecwvrhsen eij" th; n

Ai[gupton ajpelqei' nb ajllæ i{ na toi'" aijguptivoi" ejpideivxh/ tou'

aj ndro;" th; n eujsevbeian kai; zhlw'sai protrev yh/ tou' patriavrcou

th; n ajrethv n. to; n de; ∆Isaa;k aujtou' mei' nai prosevtaxe kai; th' / tw' n

aj nagkaivwn aujto; n perievklusen aj fqoniva/, deiknu;" wJ" kai; tw' /

patri; tau'ta parascei' n oi |ov" te h\ n a} kai; aujtw' / e[dwke

filotivmw": pav ntwn ga;r ej n ej ndeiva/ o[ ntwn kai; spav nei tw' n

aj nagkaivwn, kai; th'" gh'" ajgov nou gegenhmev nh", aujto;" speivra"

poluv coun e[labe to; n karpov n.c

Tiv no" e{ neken oJ ∆Isaa;k tw' / ÔHsau' dou' nai th; n eujlogivan

hjbouvleto;a

Kata; to; n novmon th~ fuvsew~: prwtovtoko~ ga;r h\ n,b oiJ de;

prwtovtokoi kai; prwtoi kai; diplh` n ejlavmbanon moiran.c hu[xhse

de; kai; hJ qerapeiva to; fivltron: hJ ga;r qhv ra aujtou` brw` si~


A [ ], , C, = mss.

a. Gn .f.mmb. Gn .mmc. Gn .

A [ ], , C, = mss.

a. Gn .–mmb. Gn .mmc. Dt .m



erected altars to God wherever they encamped, it was probably at

one of those altars that she prayed to the God of the universe and

gained her knowledge of the future.

Why did God prevent Isaac from departing for Egypt when he

was being driven to this by famine?a

In everything the Lord God reveals his wise providence. He had

allowed the patriarch Abraham to leave for Egypt,b

not because hehad no way to feed him in Palestine, but to show the Egyptians

Abraham’s devotion and to encourage them to imitate the patri-

arch’s virtue. But he ordered Isaac to stay put and showered him

with an abundance of food to show that he could have provided also

to his father the things he gave so generously to him. When every-

one was in need because of the famine and the infertility of the

land, Isaac sowed and gathered a plentiful harvest.c

Why did Isaac intend to give his blessing to Esau?a

This was according to the law of nature. Esau was the firstborn,b

and the firstborn had first place and received a double portion.c

Esau’s attendance on his father also increased his affection: “For the

Question



aujtw` /.d iJkanh; de; hJ qerapeiva kai; tou;~ wJmotavtou~ meiliv cesqai,

mhv tiv ge dh ; patevra kai; patevra filovstorgon. eu{roi dæ a[ n ti~

kai; to; n qeion ajpovstolon pleivstai~ o{sai~ eujlogivai~ tou;~

teqerapeukovta~ aujto; n ajmeiyavmenon.e

Povqen hJ ÔRebevkka teqavrrhken o{ti dh; teuvxetai th~ eujlogiva~

oJ ∆Iakw;b kai; ou{tw teqavrrhken wJ~ eijpei` n, ejpæ ej me; hJ katav ra

sou, tevknon: movnon ejpavkouson th` ~ fwnh` ~ mou ;a

Proegnwvkei para; tou` qeou` tw` n o{lwn o{ti oJ meivzwn douleuvsei

tw/ ` ejlavssoni.b ejkeiv nh/ th/ ` prorrhvsei pisteuvousa, pav nta

ejkiv nhsen povron w{ste to; n ∆Iakw;b th; n patrikh; n eujlogivan labei` n.

Tiv dhv pote tw/ ` ∆Isaa;k to; bouvlhma to; oijkeion oujk

ajpekavluyen oJ qeov~;

{Ina ej nargh;~ gev nhtai hJ tou` qeou` peri; to; n ∆Iakw;b khdemoniva.


l. mhv tiv ge dh; , c 1, Sir. ( mhvti) Sch. ( mhvti) : mhv pouv ge dh; : ei[ pouge dh; Pic. ( ei[pou, Sch.) F.M. = “if a parent, especially a doting parent .” For therather common collocation mhv tiv ge dh;, cf. Thdt., H. rel. vita . (ou}~ kai;ajriqmhsai mov non oujk eujpetev~, mhv tiv ge dh; to; n eJkavstou bivon

suggrav yai). The reading of is also possible; cf. Ps. . (Pasai ga;r tw` naj nqrwvpwn aiJ dikaiosuv nai, oujde; n pro;~ ta;~ h[dh dedomev na~ uJpo; tou` Qeou`dwrea;~ ajpocrwsi, mhvpou ge dh; pro;~ ta;~ ejsomev na~). In contrast, thedoubt expressed by the ei[ in ei[ pouv ge dh; is quite inappropriate to thecontext. Furthermore, this collocation is unexampled elsewhere among all theworks now comprised within the TLG.

d. Gn .mme. V., e.g., Phil .–.

A [ ], , c, = mss.

a. Gn .mmb. Gn .

A [ ], , C, = mss.



game he caught was his food.”d Such attendance can soften very cru-

el people, not to mention a parent, especially a doting parent. One

might also cite the example of the holy apostle who showered his

blessings on those who had taken care of him.e

How could Rebekah be so confident that Jacob would be given

the blessing, in fact, so confident as to say, “On me your curse, son,

only hearken to my voice”?a

Thanks to the God of the universe, she knew in advance that “the

elder would serve the younger.”b Trusting in that prediction, she took

every step to ensure that Jacob would receive his father’s blessing.

Why did God not reveal his wishes to Isaac?

To make God’s care for Jacob entirely clear. Isaac’s insistence on

Question



deivknusi de; touto to; me; n ∆Isaa;k ejspoudakev nai to; n ÔHsau

eujloghsai, th; n de; qeivan cavrin, kai; para; gnwvmhn tou` ∆Isaavk,

ejpi; to; n ∆Iakw;b eJlkusai th; n eujlogivan. touto de; kai; aujto;~

sunhken oJ ∆Isaavk, wJ~ ga;r pav nta povron ejkiv nhse, kai; ajpevsteileto; n ÔHsau ejpi th; n qhvran,a kaiv, tou` ∆Iakw;b th; n trofh; n

prosenhnocovto~,b pollavki~ h[reto eij aujto;~ ei[ h ÔHsau` oJ

prwtovtoko~,c kaiv, ouj mov non h[reto, ajlla; kai; ta;~ ceira~ tw/ `

swvmati prosenhv nocen.d ei\ta, tou` ÔHsau` eijselhluqovto~, to;

gegenhmev non kataplageiv~, oujk ej calevphnen wJ~ para; paido;~

ejxapathqeiv~, ajlla; to; qeion e[gnw skopov n, kai; h} n e[dwken

ejbebaivwsen eujlogivan.e

Ei\ta ouj dokei` ej yeusqai oJ ∆Iakw;b eijpwv n, ejgwv eijmi ÔHsau` oJ

prwtovtokov~ sou ; a

Priavmeno~ h\ n ta; tw` n prototokivwn presbeia: ajlhqeuvwn

toigarou` n eJauto; n ajpekavlei prwtovtokon.b

Tiv~ de; th'" eujlogiva~ hJ eJrmhneiva;a

[Emellen ejx aujtou` kata; savrka blasthvsein oJ despovth~

Cristov~,b hJ tw` n ejqnw n prosdokiva, oJ th~ oijkoumev nh~ aJpavsh~kai; swth;r kai; despovth~. tauta proorw` n, oJ patriavrch~ fhsiv n,


a. Gn .f.mmb. Gn .f.mmc. Gn .mmd. Gn .mme. Gn .

A [ ], , C, = mss.

a. Gn .mmb. Gn .–

A [ ], , C, = mss.

a. Gn .–mmb. Mt .mm



blessing Esau brings this out, for the divine grace drew the blessing

onto Jacob against Isaac’s wishes. Even Isaac himself realized this,

for he knew how he had done everything possible: he had sent Esau

huntinga and then asked repeatedly,c when Jacob offered him thefood,b if he was Esau his firstborn. Indeed, he not only questioned,

but even put his hands on, Jacob,d and then, when Esau came in and

expressed his astonishment at what had happened, Isaac was not an-

gry at the deceit perpetrated by his son, but, recognizing the divine

purpose, confirmed the blessing he had just imparted.1e

Does it not seem that Jacob lied in saying, “I am Esau your first-

born”?a

He had paid for the privileges of the firstborn, so he could truth-

fully call himself the firstborn.b

What is the meaning of the blessing?a

Christ the Lord, the expectation of the nations, the Savior and

Lord of the whole world, was to draw his bodily descent from Jacob.b

Foreseeing this, the patriarch declared, “Lo, the smell of my son is

Question

. Here Theodoret abandons the ethical viewpoint to which we have just point-ed (note to Q. ) and almost seems to endorse Speiser’s position (p. ): “[I]tgoes without saying that the task of the interpreter is not to justify or sit in judg-ment, to condone or condemn, but only to inquire what the given source means interms of its own context and background.” Like Chrysostom (hom. . in Gen.; cf.B. De Montfaucon’s note , col. , PG, vol. ), he saw the transference of the

blessing to Jacob as a mystery. It was part of the divine plan he discerned also in thebarrenness of the patriarch’s wives. But as the following question reveals, Theodo-ret feels compelled to address the moral dimension.



ijdou; ojsmh; tou` uiJou` mou wJ~ ojsmh; ajgrou` plhv rou~, o}n eujlovghse

Kuv rio~.c o{ti de; pollavki~ ajgro;n to; n kovsmon hJ qeiva kalei`

grafh; mavrtu~ oJ Kuvrio~ ej n toi~ iJ eroi~ eujaggelivoi~, th; n

parabolh; n eJrmhneuvwn: ajgrov~, gavr fhsin, e[stin oJ kovsmo~: oJ de;speiv rwn to; kalo;n spev rma ejsti;n oJ uiJo;~ tou` ajnqrwvpou.d o{ra

toigarou` n ej n tw/ ` ∆Iakw;b th~ oijkoumev nh~ aJpavsh~ th; n swthrivan.

Dio; ejpeuv cetai aujtw/ ` tou` oujranou` th; n drovson kai; th~ gh~

th; n piovthta,e a{, kata; me; n to; prov ceiron kai; ejpipovlaion tou`

gravmmato~ nov hma, dhloi` th; n a[ nwqen cavrin kai; tw` n ajpo; gh~

ajgaqw n th; n aj fqonivan, kata; de; th; n tou` ajgrou` eJrmhneivan,

aij nivttetai tou` despovtou Cristou, dia; th~ drovsou me; n th; nqeovthta, dia; de; th~ piovthto~ th~ gh~ th; n ejx hJmw` n

aj nqrwpovthta. kai; gar; oJ makavrio~ Dabi;d tauta proagoreuvwn

e[ fh, katabhvsetai wJ~ uJeto;~ ejpi; povkon kai; wJsei; stagovne~

stavzousai ejpi; th;n gh` n:f w{sper gar; hJ drovso~ ajoravtw~ me; n

kavteisi, kavtw de; sunistamev nh giv netai dhvlh, ou{tw~, ajovrato~

w] n oJ Qeo;~ lovgo~, dia; th~ sarko;~ ejpi; gh~ w[ fqh, kai; toi~

aj nqrwvpoi~ sunanestrav fh, kai; ejfanerwvqh ejn sarkiv,g kata; to; n

qeion ajpovstolon. kai; oJ sito~ de; kai; oJ oi\ no~ tw` n qeivwn ejsti;

musthrivwn ai[ nigma.

Touvtw/ sumfwnei` tw/ ` lovgw kai; ta; ejxh~: kai; douleusavtwsavn

soi e[qnh:h pavnta, gavr fhsin, ta; e[qnh douleuvsousin aujtw/ ` , h/ |

fhsin oJ qeio~ Dabivd, kai; proskunhvsousin oiJ a[rconte~:

basilei` ~, gavr fhsi, Qarsei;~ kai;.......nh` soi dw` ra prosoivsousi:

basilei` ~ aj rav bwn kai; Saba; dw` ra prosavxousi, kai;

proskunhvsousin aujtw/ ` pavnte~ oiJ basilei` ~ th~ gh~.i tauvthn ejkravtune th; n eujlogivan kai; hJ nivka aujto; n eij~ th; n

Mesopotamivan ejxevpemyen: e[sh/, gavr fhsin, eij~ sunagwga;~

ejqnw` n, kai; dw/ vh soi Kuv rio~ th;n eujlogivan ∆Abraa; m tou` patrov~

sou. j tiv~ de; hJ eujlogiva rJav /dion tw' / boulomev nw/ katamaqei' n: tw' /

ga;r ∆Abraa;m oJ tw' n o{lwn e[ fh Qeov", ejn tw' / spev rmativ sou

eujloghqhvsetai pavnta ta; e[qnh th' " gh' ".k


c. Gn .mmd. Mt .f.mme. Gn .mmf. Ps .mmg. Tm .mmh. Gn .mmi. Ps .f.mm j. Gn .f.mmk. Gn .



like the smell of an abundant field, which the Lord has blessed.”c

Now, as we can see from his interpretation of the Gospel parable, the

Lord himself is a witness that holy Scripture often refers to the world

as a “field”: “The field is the world, and the sower of the good seed isthe Son of Man.”d In Jacob, therefore, we should recognize the salva-

tion of the whole world.

Hence, he prays for him to enjoy the dew of heaven and the fat-

ness of the earth.e While, in the obvious and superficial understand-

ing, this means grace from on high and abundance of good things

from earth, in our interpretation of the field it hints at Christ the

Lord: the dew referring to his divinity and the richness of the earthto his humanity, which comes from us. In fact, foretelling this, the

blessed David declared, “He will come down like rain upon a fleece

and like drops falling on the earth.”f Just as dew descends invisibly,

and gathers, and becomes visible on the ground, so God the Word,

though invisible, was seen on earth through the flesh, held converse

with human beings, and in the words of the holy apostle “was re-

vealed in flesh.”g “The grain and the wine” constitute an oblique ref-

erence to the sacred Eucharist.1

What follows is also consistent with this interpretation: “Let na-

tions serve you.”h Now, the divinely inspired David says, “All the na-

tions will serve him, and their rulers will bow down. The kings of

Tarshish and the isles will offer gifts. Kings of Arabia and Seba will

bring gifts, and all the kings of the earth will bow down to him.”i

Furthermore, Isaac enhanced this blessing when he saw Jacob off toMesopotamia: “You will become gatherings of nations, and may the

Lord give you the blessing of Abraham your father.” j Whoever de-

sires may easily learn the content of that blessing: the God of the

universe said to Abraham, “In your offspring all the nations of the

earth will be blessed.”k

Question

. Theodoret employs a comprehensively intertextual interpretation of the pa-triarchal blessing, in which he interweaves Ps ., the dominical saying fromthe Gospel, and the hymn of Tm . to develop levels of meaning referring tochristological and even eucharistic mysteries that go “beyond the obvious and



Tiv dhv pote tosauvta" eujlogiva" labwv n, oJ ∆Iakw;b

ajpodidravskei to; n ajdelfo; n kai; mov no" ajpodhmei', tw' n aj nagkaivwn

ejsterhmev no";a

jEnargevsteron ej n tai'" dokouvsai" kakopragivai" hJ tou' Qeou'

khdemoniva dhlou'tai: oiJ ga;r ej n eujklhriva/ o[ nte" ouj c ou{tw"

i[sasin o{swn ajgaqw' n ajpolauvousi. touvtou cavrin ajpodidravskei

kai; mov no" ajpodhmei', i{ na, meta; pollh'" periousiva" ejpanelqwv n,

kai; aujto;" gnw' / o{sh tou' Qeou' tw' n o{lwn hJ promhvqeia kai; tou;"a[llou" didavxh/.

Tauvthn aujtw' / th; n khdemonivan parautivka dia; th'"

ejpifaneiva" ejdhvlwsen. ejpevdeixe me; n ga;r aujtw' / klivmaka mev cri"

aujtou' dii>knoumev nhn tou' oujranou', tou;" de; aJgivou" ajggevlou"

aj niov nta" kai; katiov nta": aujto;" dev, a[ nwqen ej festwv",

pareqavrrunev te kai; to; devo" ejxhvlasen.b ejdhvloun de; oiJ a[ggeloi

th; n qeivan diakonivan: peri; touvtwn ga;r kai; oJ makavrio" e[ fhPau'lo", ouj ci; pavnte" eijsi; leitourgika; pneuv mata, eij"

diakonivan ajpostellov mena dia; tou;" mevllonta" klhronomei' n

swthrivan ; c touvtwn de; e{kaston iJkano; n h\ n qavrso" ej nqei' nai tw' /

patriavrch/: didavsketai ga;r wJ" oujde; n ajthmevlhton oujde;

ajkhdemov neuton para; tw' / tw' n o{lwn Qew' /, ajllæ aujto;" a{panta

prutaneuv ei, diakov noi" crwvmeno" toi'" aJgivoi" ajggevloi".

[Edwke de; aujtw' / kai; th; n eujlogivan h} n kai; tw' / patri; kai; tw' /

propavtori ejdedwvkei periv te th'" tou' spevrmato" polugoniva"

kai; peri; tou' th'" oijkoumev nh" despovtou: ejneuloghqhvsontai, gavr

fhsin, ejn tw' / spev rmativ sou pa' sai aiJ fulai; th' " gh' ".d ei\ta

uJpiscnei'tai aujtw' / kai; th; n ej n toi'" prokeimev noi" khdemonivan:

ijdouv, gavr fhsi, meta; sou' eij mi diafulavsswn se ejn th' / oJdw' /,.......ou |

eja;n poreuqh' /", kai; ajpostrevyw se eij" th;n gh' n tauvthn, o{ti ouj

mhv se ejgkatalivpw e{w" tou' poih' saiv me pavnta o{sa ejlavlhsa.e


A [ ], , C, = mss.

a. Gn .–.nnb. Gn .f.nnc. Heb .nnd. Gn .nne. Gn . (LXX var.)



After receiving such great blessings, why did Jacob flee his broth-

er and go off by himself, completely unprovided for?a

Divine providence manifests itself all the more strikingly in

seeming misfortunes; in prosperity people are not aware of all the

good things they enjoy. Therefore, he took to his heels and went off

by himself so that, on returning in affluence, he might realize the

greatness of the providence of the God of the universe and teachthis to others.

God immediately manifested this care by appearing to him. He

showed him a ladder reaching as far as heaven and the holy angels

ascending and descending, while God himself, standing on high, en-

couraged him and drove away his fear.b Now, the angels were clearly

performing service to God, for as St. Paul said, “Are they not all

ministering spirits sent on a mission of service for the sake of thosewho are due to inherit salvation?”c Every detail of this vision was

sufficient to instill confidence in the patriarch, for it taught him that

God does not leave anyone outside his care and providence but gov-

erns the universe with the holy angels as his ministers.

Then God conferred on Jacob as well the blessing he had given to

his father and grandfather regarding both numerous offspring and

the Lord of the world: “In your offspring all the tribes of the earth

will be blessed.”d Then, he promised him his care even for the fu-

ture: “See, I am with you to protect you in whatever path you travel

and shall bring you back to this land, because I shall not abandon

you before bringing all my promises to accomplishment.”e

Question

surface meaning of the text.” In the sentence beginning “What follows,” etc.(Touvtw/.......ta; eJxh~), he apparently means that the rest of the blessing (Gn .)follows logically on the prophecy of the Incarnation that he has discerned in boththe blessing and the Psalm.



Why did Jacob pour oil on the stone?a

This was how he made a return to the munificent Lord from his

own possessions. Setting up the stone, which he had put under his

head, he poured oil on it.

Even today you can observe a very similar practice among many

Christian women. In God’s chapels they often anoint with oil both

the latticed gates of the shrines and the tombs of the holy martyrs,

and this is an indication of their nobility of soul. Appreciating theintention behind the act, the loving Lord welcomes even insignifi-

cant gifts.1

As a pretext for their own lust, many people allege the example of Jacob who had four wives.a

We should examine the purpose of every act. If we judge by this

standard, we shall find that the patriarch Jacob, though betrothed

only to Rachel, was joined to Leah against his will. Indeed, as soon as

he recognized the deception, he became angry and expostulated

with his father-in-law.b He had intercourse with Bilhah, not for plea-

sure’s sake, but with a view to comforting his spouse. Rachel was dis-

tressed at her childlessness and unreasonably demanded, “Give me

children; otherwise, I shall die.”c The patriarch piously rebuked her

and explained who is nature’s Creator, and that, not marriage, but

Question

. Theodoret does not grasp the biblical author’s interest in providing aetiolo-gies for sacred sites such as Bethel. It is perhaps the similarity of Jacob’s action tothe devotional practice of his church that prompts the question.



poihth; n kai; o{ti, ouj gavmo" ejsti; paivdwn dhmiourgov", ajllæ oJ tou'

gavmou nomoqevth" Qeov": e[ fh ga;r pro;" aujthv n, mh; ajnti; Qeou'

soiv eij mi ejgwv, o}" ejstev rhsev se karpo;n koiliva":d yucagwgw' n de;

o{mw" aujthv n, hj nevsceto th'" aijthvsew". h[ /thse aujto; n th' /paidivskh/ migh' nai i{ na to; ejx aujth'" fuovmenon oijkei'on

ajpokalevsh/ paidivon.e tou'to kai; ejpi; th'" Zevlfa" ejgev neto: pavlin

ga;r hJ Leiva, pausamev nh tou' tivktein, hj ntibovlhsen aujto; n eij"

ejkeiv nhn spei'rai th; n a[rouran.f tau'ta filhdonivan me; n oujdemivan

aij nivttetai, th; n de; tou' aj ndro;" ejpieivkeian deivknusi kai; o{pw"

ta;" gunai'ka" qerapeuv ein ejspouvdaze.

Pro;" de; touvtw/ kajkei' no skophtevon, o{ti novmo" oujdei;"thnikau'ta h\ n th; n polugamivan kwluvwn kai; wJ" trisolbivou"

uJpelavmbanon tovte tou;" pollw' n paivdwn ginomev nou" patevra".

kai; o{ti tou'tov ejstin ajlhqe;" aiJ qei'ai marturou'sin ejpaggelivai:

tw' / ga;r ∆Abraa;m oJ tw' n o{lwn e[ fh Qeov", ajnav bleyon eij" to;n

ouj rano;n kai; i[de tou;" ajstev ra" eij dunhvsh/ ejxariqmh' sai aujtouv":

kai; ejphvgagen, ou{tw" e[stai to; spev rma sou:g kaiv, wJ" hJ a[mmo" hJ

para; to; cei' lo" th' " qalavssh",h h{ti" oujk ejxariqmhqhvsetai ajpo;

tou' plhvqou".i oujk a] n de; aujtw' / tauvthn e[dwke th; n uJpovscesin eij

mh; th; n polugonivan mevgiston ej novmizen ajgaqov n.

Tiv no" de; cavrin aiJ gunai'ke" ejzhlotuvpoun ajllhvla";a

jAtelei'" h\san kai; dussebou'" aj ndro;" qugatevre", ta; xovanaqeou;" oj nomavzonto". touvtou e{ neken nomoqetw' n, oJ Qeo;" to; n

toiou'ton ajpagoreuv ei gavmon: ouj lhvyh/, gavr fhsi, gunai' ka ejpæ

ajdelfh' / aujth' " ajntivzhlon aujth'".b


d. Gn .mme. Gn .mmf. Gn .mmg. Gn .mmh. Gn .mmi. Gn .

A [ ], , C, = mss.

a. Gn .mmb. Lv .



Dia; tiv hJ grafh; mevmnhtai tuv ch";

[Idia th'" grafh'" ta; tou' pneuvmato" lovgia, aiJ qei'ai

diatavxei", tw' n eujsebw' n aj nqrwvpwn ta; rJ hvmata: ta; de; a[lla

iJstorikw'" levgei. crh; toiv nun, mh; mov non prosev cein tw' / lovgw/,

ajlla; kai; tw' / proswvpw/ tou' levgonto": to; toiv nun eujtuv chka,a ouj

tou' ∆Iakwvb ejsti rJ h'ma, ajlla; th'" Leiva" gunaikov", wJ" e[ fhn, ej n

dussebeiva/ trafeivsh" kai; kata; bracu; ta; qei'a paideuomev nh".

ou{tw kai; oJ tauvth" path;r e[ fh to; oijwnisav mhn,b ajllæ oJ qei'o"ajpagoreuv ei novmo" toi'" oijwnoi'" kecrh'sqai. mhdei;" toiv nun tou;"

toiouvtou" lovgou" th'" qeiva" ei\ nai nomizevtw grafh'": ta; ga;r

para; tw' n oujk eujsebw' n eijrhmev na tivqhsin oJ suggrafeuv", a{te dh;

iJstorivan suggrav fwn. ou{tw tevqeiken oJ qeiovtato" Mwu>sh'" kai;

tou' Faraw; to; n blavsfhmon lovgon: oujk oi\ da to;n Kuv rion kai; to;n

∆Israh;l oujk ejxapostevllw:c ajllæ ouj tou' qeivou pneuvmato" ou |to"

oJ lovgo" ajlla; tou' dussebou'" basilevw". ou{tw pavlin ajkouvomentou' Senachrei;m levgonto", mhv se ajpatavtw oJ Qeov" sou, ejfæ w | /

su; pevpoiqa" ejpæ aujtw' /, levgwn o{ti rJ uvsetai Kuvrio" th; n

∆Ierousalh;m ejk ceirov" mou,d ajllæ, ouj blasfhmei' n ej nteu'qen

manqav nomen, ajlla; blasfhmiva" kathgorei' n.


A [ ], , C, = mss.

l. eujtuv chka F.M. : eujtuv chma a 2

, , Sir. Sch. = “‘A piece of luck!’” Cf. Q .

( huj-) and Wevers, ap. crit. on Gn ..

a. Gn . (LXX var.)mmb. Gn .mmc. Ex .mmd. Is .; Kgs .



Why does Scripture mention good luck?

The distinctive features of Scripture are the oracles of the Spirit,

God’s laws, and the teachings of the devout; the rest is historical

narration. So one must take into account not only what is said but

also who says it. Now, the expression “I’m in luck!"1a was not Jacob’s

but Leah’s, a woman, as I remarked, raised in idolatry and only

briefly schooled in religion. Similarly, her father declared, “I would

take omens,”b whereas God’s Law forbids recourse to omens. So noone should imagine that such words are those of holy Scripture; the

author sets down the words of pagans, because he is writing history.

Moses, though a holy man, recorded the blasphemous remark of

Pharaoh: “I do not know the Lord, and I do not intend to release Is-

rael,”c a statement that comes not from the divine Spirit but from

the impious king. Again, we hear Sennacherib saying, “Do not let

your God in whom you trust deceive you when he says that the Lordwill rescue Jerusalem from my hand.”d From this we learn, not to

blaspheme, but to condemn blasphemy.

Question

ently refers to the rivalry mentioned in the question rather than to the previousstatement regarding the religious ignorance of Rachel and Leah.

. Theodoret, who has missed the etymologies connected with the names of Ja-cob’s other sons, here fails to grasp the relationship between the name “Asher” and

the Hebrew adjective “happy” and that between the verb eujtuv chka (“I am inluck”) and “Gad.” Developing an ethical interpretation, he condemns Leah’s happy exclamation in . as also Laban’s reference to divination in v. , apparently forcalling into question the reliability of Providence. Though Leah and her father didnot deliberately oppose God, their remarks seem to him as reprehensible as thosemade by God’s avowed enemies, the Pharaoh of the Exodus (Ex .) and Sen-nacherib (Kgs .). To empty all references to luck or fortune of theologicalcontent, Theodoret emphasizes that they are recorded, not as divine revelation, butonly as the thoughts of the human personages. Thus, in this question, he refers tothe author of Genesis not as “blessed Moses” (cf. Q. ), or “prophet” (profhvth~;

cf. Q.. on Exodus), but as “historian” suggrafeuv~; cf. also Q. , which dealswith another mention of good luck, and where Theodoret again describes the bib-lical author as an historian (iJstoriograv fo~).



jAlla; kai; aujto;" oJ ∆Iakw;b e[ fh tw' / Lavban, eujlovghsev se

Kuv rio" ejpi; tw' / podiv mou.a

Dhvlh tou' rJ htou' diav noia: povda ga;r th; n parousivan ejkavlesen

aj nti; tou': dia; th'" ejmh'" parousiva" kai; th'" ejmh'" khdemoniva",

tw' n qeosdovtwn ajphvlausa" ajgaqw' n. eij" ga;r th; n ejmh; n

eujsevbeian aj forw' n, oJ Qeo;" ta; ejgceirisqev nta moi para; sou'

pavsh" eujlogiva" hjxivwsen.

Tiv no" e{ neken ta;" rJavbdou" lepivsa", piv nousin parevqhke toi'"

probavtoi";a

{Wsper hjgavgeto me; n paidopoih'sai poqw' n, oujk ej n tw' / gavmw/

de; ei\ ce th; n ejlpivda th'" paidopoiiva", ajllæ ej n tw' / tou' gavmou nomoqevth/ qew' /, ou{tw kai; ta;" rJavbdou" ejlevpisen, ouj tauvtai"

qarrw' n, ajlla; th; n qeivan ejpikourivan prosmev nwn. o{qen kai; th'"

qeiva" ejpifaneiva" tetuv chke kai; levgonto" h[kousen, ajnav bleyon

toi' " ojfqalmoi' " sou kai; i[de tou;" travgou" kai; tou;" kriou;"

ajnabaivnonta" ejpi;.......ta;" ai\ ga": dialeuvkou", kai; poikivlou", kai;

spodoeidei' " rJantouv": eJwv raka ga; r o{sa soi Lav ban poiei' . ejgwv

eij mi oJ Qeov", oJ ojfqeiv" soi ejn tovpw/ Qeou' , ou | h[leiyav" moi ejkei'

sthvlhn, kai; hu[xw moi ejkei' euj chvn.b ejpeidh; ga;r ta; faia; kai; ta;

poikivla toi'" uiJ evsi tou' Lavban ej neceirivsqh, kai; triw' n hJmerw' n

oJdo; n aj festhvkesan ejkei' nai touvtwn aiJ poivmnai,c deivknusin aujtw' /


A [ ], , C, = mss.

a. Gn .

A [ ], , C, = mss.

a. Gn .–mmb. Gn .f.mmc. Gn .f.mm



But Jacob himself declared to Laban, “The Lord has blessed you

at my foot.”1a

The sense of the expression is clear: by “foot” he meant his com-

ing. In other words, “through my coming and my care you have en-

joyed God-given bounty. Observing my devotion, God deemed what

you had assigned me worthy of his blessing.”

Why did he peel the rods and place them in front of the sheep at

the water troughs?a

When he desired children, he married while resting his hope of

children, not in marriage, but in God, who had established marriage.So too he peeled the rods, not relying on them, but awaiting God’s

assistance. Hence, he was accorded the vision of God and heard him

say, “Lift up your eyes and see that the goats and rams mounting the

she-goats are white and speckled, ashen and mottled. For I have seen

all that Laban is doing to you. I am the God who appeared to you in

the place of God, where you anointed a pillar to me and made a vow

to me.”

b

Since the grey and speckled ones had been turned over toLaban’s sons, and their flocks were separated by a distance of three

days,c the champion of the wronged gave him this vision of speckled

Question

. At Gn . the LXX offers a literal rendition of the Hebrew, which Theodo-

ret correctly interprets for his questioner, who is imagined to have understood theexpression as blasphemous or at least indelicate; cf. Is ., where the same Hebrew word is a euphemism for genitalia, and note on Q. on Ex.



tw' n ajdikoumev nwn oJ provmaco" poikivlou" kriou;" kai; travgou"

oj ceuvonta" i{ na th' / peivra/ mavqh/ povsh" ajpolauvousi promhqeiva"

oiJ teqarrhkovte" tw' / tw' n o{lwn Qew' /.

jEpishmhv nasqai de; proshvkei wJ", a[ggelon eijrhkw;" to; n a[ nwoj fqev nta, e[deixen to; n aujto; n kai; Qeov n: ejgw; gav r eij mi, fhsiv n, oJ

Qeo;" oJ ojfqeiv" soi ejn th' / oJdw' /. ei\de de; ajggevlou" me; n aj niov nta"

kai; katiov nta" dia; th'" klivmako", to; n de; Kuvrion a[ nw

ejsthrigmev non. tou'ton ej ntau'qa kai; a[ggelon wj novmase kai; Qeovn:

Qeo;n me; n wJ" tou'to th; n fuvsin o[ nta, a[ggelon de; i{ na gnw'men

wJ", ouj c oJ pathvr ejstin oJ oj fqeiv", ajllæ oJ monogenh;" uiJov". tiv no"

ga;r a[ggelo" oJ pathvr; oJ de; uiJo;" kai; Qeo;" kai; megavlh" boulh' " a[ggelo" :d aujto;" ga;r hJmi' n ajphvggeile tou' patro;" ta; musthvria:

a} ga;r h[kousa, fhsiv, para; tou' patrov" mou ejgnwv risa uJ mi' n.e

ou{tw to; n keklhkovta to; n ∆Abraa;m kai; a[ggelon f wj novmase kai;

Qeovn.g

Tiv" oJ skopo;" th'" tw' n eijdwvlwn kloph'";a

Tine;" e[ fasan e[ti diakeimev nhn peri; aujtav, th; n ÔRach;l

keklofev nai aujtav: ejgw; de; touj nantivon uJpolambav nw, o{ti, kai; to; n

patevra th'" deisidaimoniva" ejleuqerw'sai boulomev nh, sesuvlhken

aujtav. to; ga;r eujsebe;" aujth'" hJ qeiva didavskei grafhv:

ej mnhvsqh......., gavr fhsin, oJ Qeo;" .......ÔRachvl, kai; ejphvkousen

aujth' " oJ Qeov", kai; ajnevw/xen aujth' " th;n mhvtran:b ajkouvsasa ga;rpara; tou' ∆Iakwvb, mh; ajnti; Qeou' soi ejgwv eij mi, o}" ejstev rhsevn se

karpo;n koiliva" ;c dh'lon o{ti spoudaiotevran tw' / Qew' /

prosenhv noce proseuch; n kai; ejtetuchvkei th'" aijthvsew". kai;

mev ntoi kai; tekou'sa, dedhvlwke th; n eujsevbeian: ei\ pe ......., gavr


d. Is .mme. Jn .mmf. Gn .mmg. Gn .

A [ ], , C, = mss.

a. Gn .mmb. Gn .mmc. Gn .m



rams and goats mounting, so that Jacob would learn from his own

experience the degree of providence enjoyed by those who trust in

the God of the universe.

Now, note that after reporting that an angel had appeared fromabove, Jacob indicated that this was none other than God himself: “I

am God, who appeared to you on the way.” He had seen angels as-

cending and descending the ladder and God set firm at the top,

whom he here called both “angel” and “God”: “God” as to his na-

ture, and “angel” so we would know that it was not the Father who

appeared to him but the only-begotten Son. While the Father does

not serve as anyone’s messenger,1

the Son is both God and “angel of great counsel.”d It was he who announced to us the mysteries of the

Father: “All I have heard from my Father I have revealed to you.”e

Likewise, the one who called out to Abraham is referred to as both

“angel”f and “God.”g

What was the point of stealing the images?a

Some commentators have claimed that Rachel stole the images

because she was still attached to them. My impression is the oppo-

site: that she carried them off because she wanted to free her father of

superstition. Indeed, holy Scripture informs us of her piety: “God re-

membered Rachel; God hearkened to her and opened her womb.”1b

So she must have listened to Jacob’s words—“Certainly, you do notregard me as in the position of God, the one who deprived you of the

fruit of the womb?”c—and offered a more ardent prayer to God, who

granted her request. Then, on giving birth, she displayed her piety

Question

. The Greek word a[ggelo~ means both “angel” and “messenger”; cf. Q. onEx.

. Both Chrysostom (hom. . in Gen.) and Theodoret display ethical concernsin their interpretation of this event. It is Chrysostom’s position that Theodoret re-

jects at the beginning of his response.



once more: “Rachel declared, ‘God has taken away my reproach,’ and

she called him ‘Joseph,’ saying,‘May God grant me yet another son.’”d

Now, if she had this disposition towards God, how could she have

tolerated slavery to false gods?In my view, however, there is also something more foreshadowed

in this event. Jacob was a type of the God of the universe, for God

had two peoples: the elder with a veil over its heart,2e the younger

clad in the beauty of faith. And Jacob had two wives: Leah with weak

eyes and Rachel shapely and very fair to behold,f the elder having

many children and the younger barren. Now, the Church of the na-

tions was once barren but later had many children: “Rejoice, youwho are barren and have no children; cry out, you who have no

birth pangs, because she who is without a husband has more chil-

dren than she who is married.”g Thus, as the Church, believing in

God the Savior, has uprooted the ancestral error, and Rachel was a

type of the Church, she stole her father’s images to foreshadow the

reality in this as well.

What is the meaning of “Jacob swore by the fear of his father

Isaac”?a

By “Fear of Isaac” he referred to his piety; that is, “Fear of Isaac”signifies God, fear of whom was lodged in his soul.

Question

. Theodoret now looks beyond the interpretation of his fellow AntiocheneChrysostom to an allegory developed by the Alexandrian Cyril (Glaph. Gen. ).Building upon the septuagintal description (Gn. .) of Leah’s eyes as “weak”(ajsqenei~) rather than “tender” or “lovely” (other possible translations of the He-brew adjective racoth ), which is itself due to a popular etymology connecting thename “Leah” to a Hebrew stem meaning “to be weary,” Cyril had taken the unat-

tractive Leah as prefiguring the Jewish people, and the lovely Rachel as prefiguringthe Christian (gentile) Church. In Theodoret’s terminology Rachel is a foreshad-owing (skiagrafhvsh/) of the Church, the reality (ajlhvqeian); cf. Guinot, p. .



Why did the angel wrestle with Jacob?a

To give Jacob confidence when he was afraid of his brother. For

the same reason he also yielded him the victory, as if to say, “How

can you fear a mere mortal after defeating me?” But to prevent Jacob

from becoming conceited at thinking he had defeated God, he

touched his thigh to indicate that he allowed himself to be bested,

for at his touch, the thigh became numb. Then Jacob recognized the

power of the one who had appeared to him and requested his bless-ing. The angel granted his requestb and gave him a new name: “You

will no longer be called Jacob; your name will be Israel, because you

have prevailed against God and will be powerful against men.”c He

also brought out the reason for the victory: “Do not fear, man, now

that I have yielded you the victory.” Even after he awoke, the thigh

remained numb and lame so that he would not think he had only

imagined the vision but recognize with complete clarity the reality of the dream. Thus, he not only failed to get an answer but received a

rebuke for exceeding the limits of nature when he asked the angel his

name: “Why do you ask my name? It inspires awe.”1d

Now, we should note that, here as well, the same being is called

both “man” and “God”: “You prevailed against God”; “and he named

that place ‘Face of God,’ ‘for I saw God face to face, and my life was

preserved’”;e and again,“The sun rose upon him as he passed Face of

God.”f Hence, we conclude that the only-begotten Son and God ap-

peared to Jacob here as well.2

Question

. Theodoret’s, but not Chrysostom’s text of . (hom. . in Gen.), con-tained the sparsely attested clause, kai; tou`to qaumastov n (“It inspires awe”); v.J.W. Wevers, Genesis, ad loc. J.L. Schulze’s suggestion (note to Q. ) that the ad-ditional clause might be a gloss is inconsistent with the appearance of the fuller

version of . also in Theodoret’s comment on Ps . LXX (. MT). BothChrysostom and Theodoret agree that the angel warns Jacob against trespassingon forbidden territory.

. Again (cf. note to Q. ), Theodoret misses the aetiologies of central impor-



Tiv ejstin ou |tov" ejstin oJ ∆Ai>na;n o}" eu | ren to;n ∆Iamh;n ejn th' /

ej rhv mw/ o{te e[nemen ta; uJpozuvgia Sebegwvn, tou' patro;" aujtou' ; a

J O Suvro" levgei phgh; n aujto; n euJrhkev nai: hJ ga;r phgh; aijna;

kalei'tai th' / Suvrwn fwnh' /.

J O ∆Iw;b povqen katavgei to; gev no";

∆Apo; tou' ÔHsau'. tou'to ga;r kai; hJ katæ aujto; n iJstoriva

didavskei: a[nqrwpo" .......ga;r h\ n, fhsiv n, ejn cwv ra/ th' / Aujsivtidi.a

dedhvlwke de; tou'to kai; oJ makavrio" Mwu>sh'": tw' n ga;r ejk tou'

ÔHsau' bebasileukovtwn ta;" diadoca;" suggrav fwn, ou{tw" e[ fh:

ajpevqane de; Balavk, kai; ej basivleusen ajntæ aujtou' ∆Iwba; b uiJo;"

Zara; ejk Bosov ra".b

sumfwnei' de; tau'ta th' / tou' ∆Iw;b iJstoriva/.


A [ ], , C, = mss.

This question was not printed by Sir. : It was transcribed from cod. and placed, without number, between Qq. and by Sch., who remarks (n. , col.), “Dubitatur autem, sintne haec Theodoreti, an potius Diodori” (“It is unclear whether this should be attributed to Theodoret or Diodore”).

a. Gn .

A [ ], , C, = mss.

a. Jb .mmb. Gn .



1

What is the meaning of “He is the Anah who found the Iamin in

the wilderness when he pastured the cattle of his father Zibeon”?a

The Syriac says he found a spring, for “Anah” is the Syriac for

“spring.”2

What was Job’s ancestry?

From Esau, as indicated in the book of Job: “There was a man in

the land of Uz.”a The blessed Moses also explained this. Listing the

kings who succeeded Esau, he declared,“Bela died, and Jobab son of

Zerah of Bozrah reigned in his place.”1b This notice is quite consis-

tent with the story of Job.

Question

tance to the ancient Hebrew narrator: the origin of the names Israel and Penuel andof the dietary taboo on the sciatic muscle; v. R.J. Clifford and R.E. Murphy, p. . Incontrast, Theodoret is concerned primarily with what he regards as a Trinitarian is-sue: i.e., the relationship to God of Jacob’s mysterious opponent. Here, as in Q. ,he follows the long-established tradition of attributing to the Son the theophaniesof the OT; cf. J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pp. f and note to Q. on Jos.

. In the editions of Sirmond and Schulze, all questions from through

bear a number lower by two; v. the critical note to this question and note 1 on

Q. .. In Gn . the LXX’s Iamin ( jIamh; n) is merely a transliteration of the He-

brew. Theodoret’s explanation is unsatisfactory, for as an unknown scholiast point-ed out, Anah ( jAi> na; n) should not mean “spring,” because it is Anah who discoversIamin, not Iamin who discovers Anah. Theodoret may have misunderstood a re-mark of Diodore’s to the effect that Iamin is a Hebrew noun meaning “water” andthat the verse would thus mean that Anah had discovered a spring in the desert; v.Deconinck, frag. .. As Speiser (ad loc.) indicates, the Hebrew term is itself ob-scure and gave rise to the most various interpretations in the ancient versions. Hetakes it to be a corruption of the common noun for “water”: “The discovery of wa-

ter in the desert would be sufficient cause for astonishment.”

. In his earlier commentary on Ezekiel, Theodoret had not made this connec-



Dia; tiv ej fqov nhsan tw' / ∆Iwsh; f oiJ ajdelfoi; aujtou';a

jHgapa'to para; tou' patro;" kai; wJ" oj yivgono", kai; wJ" th'"

ÔRach;l uiJov", kai; wJ" ajreth' / diaprevpwn: ejbavskainon toiv nun,

oJrw' nte" aujto; n protimwvmenon. kai; prw'ton me; n ejpeiravqhsan

kakw'" aujto; n para; tw' / patri; diaqei' nai, pollai'" katæ aujtou'

loidorivai" crhsavmenoi: tou' skopou' de; diamartov nte", aj nelei' n

hjboulhvqhsan: ei\ta, sumbouleuqev nte", ajpevdonto.b to; de; tw' n

dragmavtwn o[ narc proshmaiv nei th; n dia; tw' n purw' n gegenhmev nhnproskuv nhsin: sitodociva" ga;r cavrin eij" th; n Ai[gupton

eijselqov nte",d kata; th; n provrrhsin prosekuv nhsan.e

Tiv dhv pote hJ Qavmar, eJtairiko; n sch'ma periqemev nh, to; nkhdesth; n ejxhpavthsen;a

Perifane;" a[gan ejgegov nei tou' ∆Abraa;m to; gev no" diæ h} n

ei\ cen eujsevbeian. tou'to hJ Qavmar eijdui'a, spoudh; n e[scen ejx

ejkeiv nou paidopoih'sai tou' gev nou". ejpeidh; toiv nun aujth; n oJ

khdesth;" ouj kathgguv hse tw' / newtavtw/ paidiv, deivsa" mh; toi'"

ajdelfoi'" paraplhsivw" kai; aujto;" teleuthvsh/, hj nagkavsqh

klev yai th'" paidopoiiva" ta;" aj formav", ejpeidh; profanw'"

labei' n aujta;" ejkwluv eto.b pro;" de; touvtw/ kai; ejlevgcei to; n

khdesthv n, wJ", aujto; n me; n ouj swfronou' nta, aujth; n de; swfronei' n

aj nagkavzonta.c tou'to de; kajkei' no" kriv nwn ejdhvlwse: kuvousan me; n

ga;r aujth; n memaqhkwv", kateyhfivsato qav naton, gnou;" de; o{qen


A [ ], , C, = mss.

a. Gn ., mmb. Gn .–mmc. Gn .f.mmd. Gn .–mme. Gn .

A [ ], , C, = mss.

a. Gn .–mmb. Gn .–mmc. Gn .mm



Why did his brothers envy Joseph?a

His father loved him because he was a son of his old age, Rachel’s

son, and outstanding in virtue. So, seeing him given pride of place,

his brothers became jealous. At first, in their effort to set their father

against Joseph, they had recourse to frequent slander, but when they

failed to achieve their purpose, they decided to do away with him

and then agreed to sell him.b The dream of the sheavesc foreshad-

owed the obeisance they made to him for the wheat, since it was forgrain supplies that they went to Egyptd and bowed down to Joseph

just as he had foretold.e

Why did Tamar disguise herself as a prostitute to deceive herfather-in-law?a

Abraham’s descendants had become very famous for their virtue.

Aware of this, Tamar was eager to bear children from this stock.

Since her father-in-law did not betroth her to his youngest son for

fear he might die as had his brothers, she was forced to snatch an

opportunity of conceiving a child when prevented from doing this

openly.

b

Moreover, she upbraided her father-in-law for obliging herto continence when he was not continent himself.c He, too, indicat-

ed as much in his verdict. For when he learned that she was preg-

Question

tion between the Jobab of Gn . and the protagonist of the book of Job; v. in Ezech. on ., .



ejkuv hse, th; n me; n ajqw' /on ajpev fhnen, eJauto; n de; katevkrine:

dedikaivwtai, ga;r e[ fh, Qav mar h] ejgwv, ou | ei{neken ouj devdwka

aujth;n Shlw; m tw' / uiJw' / mou.d o{ti de; paidopoiiva" cavrin, kai; ouj

filhdoniva", tou'to hJ Qavmar ejmhcanhvsato ta; meta; tau'tadhloi': oujk e[ti gavr, ou[te tw' / ∆Iouvda/ ou[te a[llw/ sunhv fqh tini∑

hjrkevsqh de; mhvthr klhqh' nai tw' n ejx ejkeiv nou beblasthkovtwn tou'

spevrmato".e

Tiv no" h\ n mhv numa ta; kata; to; n Zara; kai; to; n Farev";a

Tw' n duvo law' n: oJ Fare;" tw' n ijoudaivwn, kai; oJ Zara; tw' n ejx

ejqnw' n pepisteukovtwn. kai; ga;r pro; tou' novmou h\san polloi; th'"

eujsebeiva" trov fimoi kata; pivstin, ouj kata; novmon,

politeuovmenoi: dia; tou'to oJ Zara; proexhv negke th; n cei'ra, th; n

pro; tou' novmou politeivan deiknuv". to; de; kovkkinon spartivon

mhv numa h\ n tw' n palaiw' n qusiw' n: kai; ga;r ejkei' noi qusivai" to; n

Qeo; n iJleuvonto: kai [Abel,b kai; ∆Enwv c,c kai; Nw' e,d kai;

Melcisedevk,e kai; ∆Abraavm,f || kai; ∆Isaavk,g kai; ∆Iakwvb.h ei\ta,

ejkeiv nou th; n cei'ra susteivlanto", ejxh'lqen oJ Farev": mevso" ga;r

oJ novmo" tw' n pro; novmou kai; meta; novmon. dio; kai; oJ makavrio"

levgei Pau'lo", nov mo" de; pareish' lqe,i didavskwn o{ti kai; pro; tou'

novmou kata; pivstin ejdikaiou' nto, kai; meta; to; n novmon hJ cavri"

dievlamye.

Kai; oJ Kuvrio" de; kata; savrka ejk tou' Fare;" ejblavsthsen: w |n,gavr fhsin, oiJ patev re" kai; ejx w |n oJ Cristov", to; kata; sav rka, oJ

w]n ejpi; pavntwn Qeov" : j kai; ej n th' / pro;" eJbraivou", provdhlon ga; r


||30

d. Gn .mme. Gn .

A [ ], (inc.), C, = mss.

a. Gn .–mmb. Gn .mmc. Cf. Gn ..mmd. Gn .mme. Gn .mmf. Gn .–mmg. Gn .mmh. Gn .mmi. Rom .mm j. Rom .mm



nant, he sentenced her to death, but, on realizing how she became

pregnant, declared her innocent and condemned himself: “Tamar is

more in the right than I, since I did not give her to my son Shelah.”d

Now, the sequel indicates that Tamar resorted to this ruse to con-ceive a child and not for pleasure. Indeed, she had no further rela-

tions with Judah or anyone else and was content to be known as the

mother of the children sprung from his line. 1e

What is the symbolical point of the story about Zerah and Perez?a

It has to do with two peoples: Perez referring to the believers de-

scended from the Jews, and Zerah to those descended from the gen-

tiles. Before the Law, there were many virtuous men who lived by

faith rather than the Law. Thus, Zerah thrust his hand out first to

point to the way of life before the Law. The crimson thread referred

to the sacrifices of old, for the ancients Abel,b Enoch,c Noah,d

Melchizedek,e Abraham,f Isaac,g and Jacobh all appeased God with

sacrifices. Then, when he withdrew his hand, Perez came out, for the

Law came between those before the Law and those after the Law.

Hence, St. Paul says, “But the Law slipped in,”i to teach us that, even

before the Law, there was justification by faith, and, after the Law,

grace shone forth.

Now, the Lord was descended from Perez according to the flesh:“To them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the

flesh, came the Christ, who is God over all”; j and in the Epistle to the

Question

. Theodoret, neglecting the bearing of this story on the institution of leviratemarriage, focuses entirely on its moral import. Von Rad (on .–) agrees with

Theodoret in concluding that Tamar receives the approbation of the biblical au-thor: “Tamar, in spite of her action which borders on a crime, is the one justifiedin the end. Judah states it at the climax of the story.”



o{ti ejx ∆Iouvda ajnatevtalken oJ Kuv rio" hJ mw' n ∆Ihsou'" Cristov".k

tou'to kai; oJ makavrio" Matqai'o", th; n genealogivan suggrav fwn,

ejdivdaxe.l tou'to mev ntoi to; dihvghma tevqeiken oJ makavrio"

Mwu>sh'", didavskwn ijoudaivou" wJ" tou' Dabi;d to; poluqruvllhtongev no" ejk gunaikw' n ajllofuvlwn sunevsth i{ na mh; kata; tw' n ejx

ejqnw' n pepisteukovtwn ajlazoneuvwntai, wJ" ajkhvraton fulavxante"

th; n eujgev neian.

Qw'men th; n Leivan, wJ" ajtelh' kata; th; n eujsevbeian, eijrhkev nai

to; hujtuv chka,a pw'" oJ iJstoriograv fo", ta; kata; to; n ∆Iwsh; f

suggrav fwn, ei\pe to; h\ n ajnh; r ejpitugcavnwn ;b

jAnavgnwqi to; protetagmev non rJ hto; n kai; euJrhvsei" th; n luvsin.

eijpw; n gavr, h\ n Kuv rio" meta; ∆Iwshvf, ejphvgage, kai; h\ n ajnh; r

ejpitugcavnwn, kai; prostevqeike, kai; ejgevneto ejn tw' / oi[kw/ para;

tw' / kurivw/ tw' / aijguptivw/. h[ /dei de; oJ kuv rio" aujtou' o{ti Kuv rio" metæ

aujtou' kai; o{sa a]n poih/ ` , Kuv rio" eujodoi` .c oujkou' n eij" a{panta

ejpetuvgcanen, ejpeidh; Kuvrio" h\ n metæ aujtou': aujto;" ga;r eujwvdou

ta; paræ aujtou' ginovmena. tou'to, kai; ta; kata; to; desmwthvrion

dihgouvmeno", e[ fh: pavnta ga; r h\ n, fhsiv, dia; ceiro;" ∆Iwshvf, dia;

to; to;n Kuv rion metæ aujtou' ei\ nai, kai; o{sa aujto;" ejpoivei, Kuv rio"

eujwvdou ejn tai' " cersi;n aujtou' .d


k. Heb .mml. Mt .

A [ ], C, = mss.

l. ta; kata; to; desmwthvrion a 2 , c –3, , : ta; kata;desmwthvrion Sir. Sch. F.M. The TLG offers no other example of the phrase ta;kata; desmwthvrion among the works it now contains; cf. Chrys., hom. . in Acta ap. ( e[ nqa ta; kata; to; desmwthvrion ejgev neto), which supports thewidely attested reading here adopted.

a. Gn . (LXX var.)mmb. Gn .mmc. Gn .f. mmd. Gn .



Hebrews:“For it is evident that our Lord Jesus Christ was descended

from Judah.”k St. Matthew taught the same thing in his genealogy.l

Indeed, blessed Moses composed this account to teach the Jews that

the celebrated line of David was derived from foreign women, sothey could not lord it over the believers from the nations and claim

they had kept their own noble line uncontaminated.

Granted that Leah said, “I am in luck,”a because she was ignorant

of religion, what did the historian mean when he remarked of

Joseph: “He was a fortunate man”?b

Read the preceding sentence, and you will find the solution. Hav-

ing said, “The Lord was with Joseph,” he went on, “and he was a for-

tunate man,” and proceeded, “He was in the house of his Egyptian

master, and his master realized that the Lord was with him, and the

Lord caused all he did to prosper.”c So he was fortunate in every-

thing because the Lord was with him; the Lord caused everything he

did to prosper. And, describing what happened in the prison, Moses

said “Everything was done by the hand of Joseph, since the Lord was

with him, and everything he did the Lord caused to prosper in his

hands.”d

Question



Pw'", euj nou' co" w[ n, oJ ajrcimavgeiro" gunai'ka ei\ cen;a

Mavlista me; n ou\ n kai; tou;" euj nouv cou" kai; tou;" ejktomiva"

oJmwnuvmw" kalou'sin. oujde; n de; h\ n ajpeikov", kai; euj nou' con o[ nta,

gunai'ka e[ cein ej n th' / oijkiva/, tw' n e[ ndon ejpimeloumev nhn

pragmavtwn.

Tiv no" e{ neken, crov nou tosouvtou parelhluqovto", ou[te ∆Iwsh; f

tw' / patri; th; n douleivan ejgnwvrisen, ou[te oJ Qeo;" diæ

ajpokaluv yew" ejdhvlwse tou'to tw' / ∆Iakwvb;

[Edei kata; th; n provrrhsin, th; n pro;" to; n ∆Abraa;m

gegenhmev nhn, to; n ∆Iakw;b meta; tw' n paivdwn kai; tw' n ejkgov nwn

eij" th; n Ai[gupton katelqei' n.a

eij de; ta; kata; to; n ∆Iwsh; f ejgnwvkei, pav ntw" a] n aujtov n, luvtra pepomfwv", ejpanhvgage.

touvtou cavrin aujto; n ajqumou' nta parei'denb i{ na kai; th; n

oijkonomivan plhrwvsh/ kai; qumhrestevran aujtw' / meta; tau'ta th; n

zwh; n katasthvsh/. kai; aujto;" de; oJ ∆Iwsh; f tou' Qeou' th; n

oijkonomivan didavskei tou;" ajdelfouv": eij" ga; r zwhvn, fhsiv n,

ajpevstalkev me oJ Qeo;" e[ mprosqen uJ mw' n c tou' diaqrev yai lao; n

poluv n.d kai; oJ Dabi;d tau'tav fhsi: kai; ejkavlese limo;n ejpi; th;n

gh' n, pa' n sthv rigma a[ rtou sunevtriyen. ajpevsteilen e[ mprosqen

aujtw' n a[nqrwpon: eij" dou' lon ejpravqh ∆Iwshvf, kai; ta; eJxh'".e


A [ ], C, = mss.

a. Gn .mm

A [ ], C, = mss.

a. Gn .–mmb. Gn .f.mmc. Gn .mmd. Gn .mme. Ps .f.mm



Eij de; oJ patriavrch" tou' paido;" th; n douleivan ejgnwvkei,

pav ntw" a] n aujto; n ejlutrwvsato: lutrwqei;" dev, oujk a] n

desmwthvrion w[ /khsen:f eij de; mh; tou'to ejgegov nei, oujk a] n tou;"

oj neivrou" toi'" oijkevtai" ejkeiv noi" hJrmhv neusen:g mh; eJrmhneuvsa"dev, gnwvrimo" oujk a] n ejgegov nei tw' / Farawv: gnwvrimo" de; mh;

genovmeno", oujk a] n th; n dia; tw' n oj neivrwn ejsafhv nise provrrhsin:

tou'to de; mh; dedrakwv", oujk a] n ejpisteuvqh th'" Aijguvptou ta;"

hJ niva":h th'" Aijguvptou de; mh; paralabw; n th; n ajrchv n, oujk a] n to; n

patriavrchn meta; tou' gev nou" h[gagen eij" th; n Ai[gupton.i ejk

tou' tevlou" ou\ n giv netai dh'lo" th'" qeiva" oijkonomiva" oJ skopov".

Oujkou' n oujk ejxhvmarton oiJ ajdelfoiv, oijkonomiva/

uJpourghvsante" qeiva/;

To; me; n ejkeiv nwn e[rgon baskaniva" kai; fqov nou:a sofo;" de; w] n,

oJ Qeo;" th' / ponhriva/ th' / ejkeiv nwn eij" touj nantivon ej crhvsato: diæ

w | n ga;r ejpeiravqhsan kwlu'sai tw' n oj neivrwn th; n e[kbasin, dia;

touvtwn ejpitevqeike toi'" oj neivroi" to; tevlo".b

Tiv no" cavrin eujqu;" oj fqei'si toi'" ajdelfoi'" wjmovteron

proshnev cqh;a


f. Gn .mmg. Gn .–mmh. Gn .–mmi. Gn .–

A [ ], C –50 , = mss.

a. Gn ., mmb. Gn .–

A [ ], c, , = mss.

a. Gn .mm



If the patriarch had known of his son’s enslavement, he would

definitely have ransomed him. If he had ransomed him, Joseph

would not have been imprisoned.f And if that had not happened, he

would not have interpreted their dreams to the servants.g And if Joseph had not interpreted their dreams, he would not have become

known to Pharaoh. And if he had not become known to Pharaoh,

he would not have explained the prophecy contained in his dreams.

And if he had not done that, he would not have been entrusted with

the reins of the government of Egypt.h And if Joseph had not been

given control of Egypt, he would not have brought the patriarch

down to Egypt with his family.i

Thus, it is from the outcome that thepurpose of the divine plan becomes clear.

Are we to conclude that the brothers committed no sin, since

they were serving the divine plan?

Though they acted out of malice and envy,a God in his wisdom

used their wickedness to the opposite effect; he employed their very

efforts to obstruct the outcome of the dreams to bring them to ful-

fillment.b

Why did Joseph deal so severely with his brothers when he first

saw them?a

Question



Memnhmev no" tw' n eij" aujto; n gegenhmev nwn kai; to; n Beniami; n

oujk ijdwv n,b uJpetovpase kajkei' non taujta; paræ aujtw' n peponqev nai.

ejpeidh; de; zw' nta to; n ajdelfo; n ei\de,c kai; suggnwvmh" kai;

pantodapou'" khdemoniva" hjxivwse.d

Tiv na eJrmhneivan e[ cei to; Yomiqo; m fanev c; a

Tw' n ajporrhvtwn eJ rmhneuth;n aujto; n kevklhken, wJ" tou;"

oj neivrou" diasafhvsanta.

Tiv no" e{ neken to; n deuvteron, kai; ouj to; n prw'ton, tw' n

ajdelfw' n kaqeircqh' nai prosevtaxen;a

jEgnwvkei tou' ÔRoubh; n to; n skopo; n kai; h[ /dei safw'" oJpovsou"

uJpe;r aujtou' pro;" tou;" ajdelfou;" ejpoihvsato lovgou" kai; o{shn

uJpe;r th'" aujtou' swthriva" eijsenhnov cei spoudhv n.b ejpeidh; toiv nun

ouj sunhvrghsen oJ Sumew; n tw' / ÔRoubhv n, mavla dikaivw" aujto; n

kaqeircqh' nai prosevtaxen ajllæ, ejkdedhmhkovtwn tw' n ajdelfw' n,

pavsh" aujto; n qerapeiva" hjxivwse.

Touvtwn mev ntoi ginomev nwn, hJsucivan a[gein to; suneido;" oujk

hj neiv ceto, ajlla; th'" gegenhmev nh" eij" to; n ajdelfo; n paranomiva"

aj nevmnhsen: ei\ pe, gavr fhsin, e{kasto" pro;" to;n ajdelfo;n aujtou' ,naiv: ejn aJ martivai" gav r ejsmen peri; tou' ajdelfou' hJ mw' n, o{ti

uJpereivdomen th;n qli' yin th' " yuch' " aujtou' , o{te katedeveto


b. Gn .mmc. Gn .mmd. Gn .–

A [ ], C –53, = mss.

a. Gn .

A [ ], C, = mss.

a. Gn .mmb. Gn .f.mm



Remembering his own experience and not seeing Benjamin,b he

suspected that he had suffered the same fate at their hands. But

when he saw his brother alive,c he decided they deserved pardon and

his every consideration.d

What is the meaning of Psomithom Phanech?a

He called him “explainer of mysteries” since he had elucidated

the meaning of the dreams.1

Why did he order the imprisonment of the second, rather than

the eldest, of the brothers?a

He knew Reuben’s intentions and was well aware of the plea he

had made to his brothers on his behalf and of the great effort he had

made to save him.b So since Simeon had not supported Reuben,

Joseph was quite justified in ordering him to be imprisoned; yet

when his brothers departed, he accorded him every attention.

After this, however, their conscience refused to rest and remind-

ed them of the crime they had committed against their brother:

“Each said to his brother, ‘To be sure, we are guilty of sin towardsour brother, for we disregarded his distress of soul when he pled

with us and we did not hearken to him.’ Therefore, all this distress

Question

. “Psomithom Phanech” is a transliteration of the form of the name ( Yomiqo;m fanev c) offered by Theodoret; the more widely attested LXX form is Yonqomfan- hv c (Psonthomphanech); v. J.W. Wevers ad Gn .. In contrast, the MT offers aform transliterated as Zaphenath-paneah, which, according to Speiser, probably

represents the Egyptian for “God speaks: he lives”; v. note e, p. and on ..Jerome had offered, “Savior of the world” (Salvatorem mundi ). Theodoret’s readerswould not be in a position to gainsay his version, which lacks linguistic foundation.



hJ mw' n, kai; oujk eijshkouvsamen aujtou' . e{neken touvtou ejph' lqen ejfæ

hJ ma' " hJ qli' yi" au{th.c kai; oJ ÔRoubh; n de; eij" kairo; n ejpavgei to; n

e[legcon: ei\ pe, gavr fhsin, aujtoi' ", oujk ejlavlhsa uJ mi' n, levgwn,

mh; ajdikhvshte to; paidav rion ; kai; oujk eijshkouvsatev mou. kai;ijdou; to; ai | ma aujtou' ejkzhtei' tai.d ej nteu'qen e[sti gnw' nai safw'"

to; ajkline;" tou' suneidovto" krithvrion: th'" ga;r pro; duvo kai;

ei[kosi ejtw' n gegenhmev nh" aj namimnhv /skei paranomiva".

Dia; tiv tw' / ÔRoubh; n oujk ejqavrrhse dou' nai to; n Beniami; n oJ

pathvr;a

{Upopto" h\ n aujtw' / dia; th; n parav nomon sunousivan kai; th'"

euj nh'" paroinivan,b hjgnov ei de; kai; o{shn uJpe;r tou' ∆Iwsh; f

eijsenhnov cei spoudhv n.c

Tiv ejstin oijwnismw' / oijwnivzetai ejn aujtw/ ' ; a

Aujxh'sai th'" dokouvsh" kloph'" to; e[gklhma boulhqev nte",

manteiva" o[rganon to; pothvrion oj nomavzousi. tou'to de; kai;

aujto;" e[ fh ∆Iwshv f: oujk oi[date o{ti oijwnismw' / oijwniei' tai

a[nqrwpo" oi |o" ejgwv;b tau'ta de; e[legen, ouj manteiva/ kai; oijwnoi'"


c. Gn .mmd. Gn .

A [ ], C, = mss.

a. Gn .–mmb. Gn .mmc. Gn .f.

A [ ], C, = mss.

a. Gn .mmb. Gn .



has come upon us.”c And Reuben brought a timely charge against

them: “He said to them, ‘Did I not tell you, “Do no wrong to the

child,” and did you hearken to me? Lo, an account is required of his

blood.’”d From this we can form a clear idea of the unswerving judg-ment of conscience, which reminded them of the crime they had

committed twenty-two years before.1

Why was his father afraid to hand Benjamin over to Reuben?a

Jacob was suspicious of Reuben after his drunken violation of his

bed.b Furthermore, he was unaware of all the effort Reuben had

made on behalf of Joseph.c

What is the meaning of “he practices augury with it”?a

To add to the seriousness of the accusation for the alleged theft,

they called the cup an instrument of divination. In fact, Joseph him-

self declared: “Are you unaware that a man of my station will prac-

tice augury?”1b Now, he said this, not because he was practicing div-

Question

. This passage exemplifies Theodoret’s concern with precise chronology. Heprobably arrived at this calculation through a comparison of the data in .

(Joseph was seventeen when sold into slavery.); . (He was thirty when raisedto power.); . (The seven years of plenty had passed.); and . (It was then thesecond year of the famine.); thus + + = . Of course, such a precise reckon-ing is possible only for a reader who ignores the different strands of tradition com-bined to form this narrative. Speiser attributes the chronological notice of . tothe Yahwistic (p. ), that of . to the Priestly (p. and ad loc.), that of .

to the Elohistic (p. ), and that of . to the Yahwistic source (p. ); v. also hisintroduction to the narrative, pp. –.

. Theodoret, who avoids the obvious sense of Joseph’s remark, is trying to



ination and augury, but to adapt his words to the role he had as-

sumed. We must admire his precise choice of words. Even when

putting on this act for his brothers, he was unwilling to attribute

divination to himself and applied the attribution to another man inthe same position. Note, he did not say, “I practice augury,” but “a

man of my position will practice augury.”

Why did he stage the incident of the cup?a

He wanted to test his brothers’ intentions and find out whether

they would take Benjamin’s side when he was unjustly accused;

therefore, he hid the cup in his sack. But when he saw them not sim-

ply pleading for, but even championing, him,b he cast off his mask

and revealed the face of a brother.c As they cowered, all but wishing

the earth would swallow them up, he spoke words of comfort: “Do

not be afraid now, nor think it was cruel to sell me here. God has

sent me before you on a mission of life.”d He sent them on their way

quite graciously with the recommendation, “Do not quarrel on the

way,”e that is, “Do not commit any crime like the one you commit-

ted against me.”

Why did he acquire the Egyptians’ land and cattle for the king?a

Question

acquit the patriarch of any imputation of pagan belief or practice; cf. his defense of Moses, whom he takes to be author of Genesis, in Qq. and and of Gideon inQ. on Jgs.



Ou[te ta; kthv nh qrev yai oi |oiv te h\san ej n sitodeiva/ kai;

spanositiva/ ou[te spei'rai th; n gh' n. tau'ta toiv nun labw; n ej n tw' /

kairw' / tou' limou', u{steron ajpodevdwke, th'" prosovdou to;

pevmpton eijsfevrein nomoqethvsa" i{ na ej n tai'" ej ndeivai"ajpokeimev na" e[ cwsi ta;" th'" zwh'" aj formav". eij" qerapeivan de;

tou' basilevw" th; n iJ eratikh; n gh' n ajtelh' katalevloipe mov nhn.b

tauvth" de; th'" timh'" oiJ tou' Qeou' tou' o[ nto" oujk ajpolauvousin

iJ erei'": tosou'ton oiJ dussebei'" toi'" oujk ou\si qeoi'" ajpev nemon

sevba".

Dia; tiv oJ ∆Iakw;b eij" th; n Cebrw; n to; sw'ma aujtou' tafh' nai

keleuv ei;a

Ouj tav fou frontivzwn, w{" tine" uJpeilhv fasin, ajlla; to; gev no"

yucagwgw' n kai; didavskwn wJ" a{panta" aujtou;" oJ despovth"

Qeo;" metasthvsei th'" Aijguvptou kai; th; n ejphggelmev nhn aujtoi'"

ajpodwvsei gh' n. tou'ton de; safevsteron oJ ∆Iwsh; f to; n lovgon

ajpev fhne: teleutw' n ga;r ou{tw" e[ fh: ejgw; ajpoqnhv /skw. ejpiskoph' /

de; ejpiskevyetai uJ ma' " oJ Qeo;" kai; ajnavxei uJ ma' " ejk th' " gh' "

tauvth" eij" th;n gh' n h}n w[ mosen oJ Qeo;" toi' " patravsin hJ mw' n, tw' /

∆Abraav m, kai; ∆Isaavk, kai; ∆Iakwv b. kai; w{ rkisen ∆Iwsh;f tou;" uiJou;"

∆Israhvl, levgwn, ejn th' / ejpiskoph' / h | / ejpiskevyetai uJ ma' " oJ Qeo;"

kai; sunanoivsete ta; ojsta' mou ejnteu' qen meqæ uJ mw' n:b wJ" ei\ nai

dh'lon o{ti kajkei' no" kai; ou |to", th; n ejpav nodon proagoreuvonte",ta; peri; th'" tafh'" ej neteivlanto.


b. Gn .

A [ ], C, = mss.

a. Gn .f.mmb. Gn .f.



Due to the famine and dearth of grain, they were unable to feed

their cattle or sow the soil. So he took them over during the famine

and later returned them after legislating a tax of a fifth of their in-

come to provide stockpiles of supplies for times of shortage. Out of respect for the king, he exempted only the priests’ land.b The priests

of the true God do not enjoy this privilege—such being the venera-

tion that pagans accorded their false gods.1

Why did Jacob give directions for the burial of his body in He-

bron?a

Despite the opinions of some commentators, he was concerned,

not with his own burial, but with persuading and teaching his fami-

ly that the Lord God would set them free from Egypt and give them

the promised land. And in his own last moments, Joseph indicated

this more explicitly when he said, “‘I am dying, but God will surely

visit you and bring you up from this land into the land that God

swore to our fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.’ And Joseph adjured

the sons of Israel in the words, ‘When God visits you, as he surely

will, you will take my bones away with you.’”b Thus, we conclude

that both Jacob and Joseph gave instructions for their burial as a

way of foretelling the return.1

Question

. In ch. Joseph implements the economic plan he had outlined when inter-preting Pharaoh’s dream (.–). The result was the enslavement of the Egypt-ian people, not, as Theodoret maintains, the eventual restoration of cattle andland. Despite some modern commentators “who have found in this report of theenslavement of the Egyptian peasant shocking proof of Joseph’s inhumanity,”Speiser argues (p. ) that, given the socio-economic conditions of the New King-dom, it is likely that, at the time, such changes would have seemed “constructive.”

. Theodoret uses Joseph’s instructions in Gn .f. to clarify Jacob’s arrange-ments for burial in Hebron (.f.), where Abraham had purchased land and acave as a family tomb (.f.). Theodoret’s argument seems implicitly to criticize



Tiv ejsti prosekuvnhsen ∆Israh;l ejpi; to; a[kron th' " rJav bdou

aujtou` ;a

Kai; presbuvth" w] n kai; ajsqenw'" diakeivmeno", ejpi; th'"

kliv nh" katevkeito, gnou;" de; tou' paido;" th; n parousivan,

ejxanasta;" ejkaqevsqh, bakthriva/ de; kecrhmev no" ejpesthrivzeto

aujth' /, tou' me; n a[krou tauvth" ejpeilhmmev no" th' / dexia' /,

ejpikeivmenon de; to; provswpon e[ cwn: hJsqei;" toiv nun ejpæ aujtw' / kai;

th' / th'" tafh'" ejpaggeliva/, prosekuv nhsen, ejpikliv na" th' / rJavbdw/th; n kefalhv n. kai; prw'ton me; n to; tou' ∆Iwsh; f ej nuvpnion to;

pevra" ejdevxato: ei\de ga;r to; n h{lion, kai; th; n selhv nhn, kai;

e{ ndeka ajstevra" proskunou' nta" aujtw' /.b

Pro;" de; touvtoi" proagoreuv ei kai; th'" ∆Efrai; >m fulh'" th; n

basileivan kai; tw' n devka fulw' n th; n uJpotaghv n. tau'ta ga;r kai; oJ

qei'o" ajpovstolo" e[ fh: pivstei ∆Iakw; b .......e{kaston tw' n uiJw' n

∆Iwsh;f eujlovghse kai; prosekuvnhsen ejpi; to; a[kron th' " rJav bdou aujtou` .c devdwke de; aujtw' / kai; klh'ron diplou' n: ∆ Efraiv > m, gavr

fhsi, kai; Manassh' " wJ" ÔRoubh;n kai; Sumew;n e[sontaiv moi.d

profhtikw'" de; protevtace tou' Manassh' to; n ∆Efraiv >m: kai; ga;r

tou' ∆Iwsh; f wJ" prwtotovkw/ tw' / Manassh' / ta; presbei'a

fulavxanto" kai; kata; tavxin eJkavteron sthvsanto", ej nallavxa" oJ

patriavrch" ta;" cei'ra", ejpitevqeike tw' / newtevrw/ th; n dexiav n,

th; n eujwv numon de; tw' / presbutevrw/. ei\ta nomivsa" oJ ∆Iwsh; f ejx

ajgnoiva" dedrakev nai tou'to to; n ∆Iakwvb, kai; topavsa" tou'

pavqou" ei\ nai tw' n oj fqalmw' n th; n aijtivan, kai; eijrhkwv", ouj c

ou{tw", pavter: ou |to" gav r ejstin oJ presbuvtero",e h[kousen, oi\ da,

tevknon, oi\ da: kai; ou |to" e[stai eij" laovn, kai; ou |to" uJywqhvsetai,

ajllæ oJ ajdelfo;" aujtou' oJ newvtero" meivzwn aujtou' e[stai.f


A [ ], C, = mss.

a. Gn .mmb. Gn .mmc. Heb .mmd. Gn .mme. Gn .mmf. Gn .mm



What is the meaning of “Israel bowed down on the tip of his

rod”?a

An old man and infirm, he was lying in bed. Aware of his son’s

arrival, he sat up; he used a staff to support himself, taking its tip in

his right hand and resting his head on it. Pleased with Joseph and

the promise of burial, Jacob bowed down, bending his head to the

rod.1 Consequently, Joseph’s dream was fulfilled, in which he saw

the sun, the moon, and eleven stars bowing down to him.b

In addition, Jacob foretold the reign of the tribe of Ephraim and

the subjection of the ten tribes. As the holy apostle said, “By faith Ja-

cob blessed each of the sons of Joseph and bowed down on the tip of

his rod.”c

Now, he gave him a double inheritance: “Ephraim andManasseh, like Reuben and Simeon, will be mine.”d In his prophetic

speech Jacob put Ephraim ahead of Manasseh. Though Joseph kept

the privileges of the elder for Manasseh his firstborn and put each in

order, the patriarch crossed his arms and placed his right hand on

the younger and his left on the elder. Then, Joseph thinking that Ja-

cob, due to his poor eyesight, had committed an inadvertent mis-

take, said, “Not that way, father; this one is the elder,”e and heard the

reply, “I know, son, I know; he will also become a people, and he will

also be elevated, but his younger brother will be greater than him.”f

Question

an undue concern for the place of burial; cf. Chrysostom’s criticism of Christianswho desired prominent tombs in sec. of his Exp. in Ps. . LXX (. MT).

. In Gn . the consonantal text of the Hebrew contains mt .t .h, which couldbe pointed to mean either “bed” or “staff.” The LXX chose the latter alternative, theMasoretes, Aquila, and Symmachus the former.



jEpishmantevon de; o{ti pantacou' tw' n prwtotovkwn oiJ metæ

aujtou;" protimw' ntai: kai; ga;r tou' Kavi> n proekrivqh oJ [Abel,g

kai; tou' ∆Iav feq oJ Shvm, deuvtero" w[ n: ajdelfov", gavr fhsin, ∆Iavfeq

tou' meivzono":h kai; tou' ∆Ismah;l oJ ∆Isaavk,i kai; tou' ÔHsau' oJ∆Iakwvb, j kai; tou' ÔRoubh; n kai; ∆Iouvda oJ ∆Iwshv f,k kai; tou'

Manassh' oJ ∆Efraiv >m.l tou'to kai; ej n toi'" meta; tau'ta eu{roi ti"

a[ n: kai; ga;r tou' ∆Aarw; n oJ Mwu>sh'" proetav cqh,m kai; Dabivd,

newvtato" w[ n, tw' n eJpta; ajdelfw' n.n

J O mev ntoi patriavrch" ∆Iakw;b ejdivdaxe dia; th'" prorrhvsew"

th'" tafh'" th; n aijtivan: ijdouv, gavr fhsin, ejgw; ajpoqnhv /skw, kai;

e[stai oJ Qeo;" meqæ uJ mw' n kai; ajpostrevyei uJ ma' " .......eij" th;n gh' n tw' n patev rwn hJ mw' n.o

Pw'" eujlogh'sai levgetai tou;" pai'da" oJ ∆Iakwvb, ej nivoi"

ejparasavmeno";

() Ou[te ajraiv eijsin, ou[te eujlogivai, ajlla; prorrhvsei" oiJ

teleutai'oi tou' patriavrcou lovgoi: sunav cqhte, gavr fhsin, i{na

ajpaggeivlw uJ mi' n tiv ajpanthvsetai uJ mi' n ejpæ ejscavtwn tw' n

hJ merw' n.a ejmnhvsqh de; kai; tw' n paræ ej nivwn gegenhmev nwn, oujk

ejpeidh; divka" oiJ pai'de" eijsepravttonto tw' n patrikw' n

aJmarthmavtwn, ajlla; schmativzwn eij" ajra; n kai; eujlogivan tou;"

lovgou" eij" koinh; n tw' n ej nteuxomev nwn wj fevleian. kai; tw' / me; n

ÔRoubh; n aujqavdeian|| ejpimevmfetai, kai; qrasuvthta, kai; th; n eij"th; n patrwv /an euj nh; n paroinivan.b ou | dh; cavrin ojlivgou" aujtou'

gegenh'sqai tou;" ajpogov nou" prolevgei: tou'to ga;r dhloi' to; wJ"

u{dwr mh; ejkzevsh/" c aj nti; tou'∑ mh; qermanqeiv h" eij" polugonivan.


||10

g. Gn .–mmh. Gn .mmi. Gn .mm j. Gn .mmk. Gn .mml. Gn .mmm. Chr .mmn. Sm .–mmo. Gn .

A [ ], C, (inc.) = mss.

a. Gn .mmb. Gn .mmc. Gn .mm



Note that throughout Scripture the later born are ranked ahead

of the firstborn: Abel was given preference to Cain,g and Shem,

though second, to Japheth—“brother of Japheth, the elder,”h as

Scripture says2—Isaac to Ishmael,i Jacob to Esau, j Joseph to Reubenand Judah,k and Ephraim to Manasseh.l And there are more exam-

ples in subsequent generations: Moses was ranked ahead of Aaron,m

and David, though the youngest, ahead of his seven brothers.n

Now, the patriarch Jacob conveyed the reason for his burial in the

following prophecy: “Lo, I am dying; God will be with you and will

bring you back to the land of your fathers.”o

Why is Jacob said to have blessed his sons though he actually

cursed some of them?1

() The dying words of the patriarch are neither curses nor bless-

ings, but prophecies: “Gather round and I shall tell you what will

happen to you in the last days.”a He also mentions some of the

things they did, not because the children were to pay the penalty for

their fathers’ sins, but to present his words in the form of curse and

blessing with a view to the general benefit of future readers. Up-

braiding Reuben for willful audacity and his drunken defilement of

his father’s bed,b he predicted that his offspring would be few. Thisis the meaning of “May you not bubble up like water”;c that is,“May

Question

. At Gn . both the Hebrew and the LXX present the order Shem, Ham,Japheth, but in ., where the Hebrew speaks of “Shem.......the elder brother of Japheth,” the LXX reverses the order: tw/ ` Sh;m.......ajdelfw/ ` jIav feq tou` meivzono~.

. On the pretext of a single question, Theodoret now begins to comment on a

passage generally known as “The Testament of Jacob” (v. R.J. Clifford and R.E.Murphy on Gn .–); he rightly insists that these are prophecies, even if mod-ern scholarship would date them to a period later than the patriarchs.



nemesa' / de; kai; tw' / Sumew; n kai; tw' / Leuiv, to; n tw' n sikhmitw' n

a[dikon o[leqron ojdurovmeno",d kai; eu[ cetai mhdemivan koinwnivan

eij" th; n paranomivan e[ cein ejkeiv nhn. ejpara'tai mev ntoi, oujk

aujtoi'", ajlla; toi'" ponhroi'" aujtw' n pavqesi: th' / ojrgh' /, th' / mhv nidi.ejpiqumivan de; th; n ojrgh; n ejkavlesen: ejk tauvth" ga;r kai; hJ oj rgh ;

th; n ejtumologivan e[ cei: ojrevgetai ga;r oJ ojrgizovmeno" ajmuv nasqai

to; n ej cqrov n. kai; au{th de; hJ timwriva provrrhsi" h\ n: diameriw`

ga;r aujtouv", fhsiv n, ejn ∆Iakw; b kai; diasperw' aujtou;" ejn ∆Israhvl.e

ajllæ hJ tou' Leui; fulh; dia; th; n a[kran diespavrh timhv n: w{ste

ga;r eJkavsth/ fulh' / sunei' nai leuivta" kai; iJ ereva", kai; th; n paræ

aujtw' n wj fevleian karpou'sqai, oujk e[labon i[dion klh'ron, ajllæ ej n eJkavsth/ fulh' / tine" aujtoi'" ajpenemhvqhsan povlei" kai; th'"

proasteivou gh'" wJrismev no" phv cewn ajriqmov".f kai; hJ tou' Sumew; n

de; fulh; oujk ei\ ce klh'ron kecwrismev non ajllav, kata; th; n tou'

patriavrcou provrrhsin, metaxu; tw' n a[llwn diespavrh fulw' n.g

Tou' de; ∆Iouvda pollou;" ejpaiv nou" dievxeisin: ∆ Iouvda, se;

aijnevsaisan oiJ ajdelfoiv sou: aiJ cei' rev" sou ejpi; nwvtou tw' n

ej cqrw' n sou: proskunhvsousiv soi oiJ uiJoi; tou' patrov" sou.

skuv mno" levonto" ∆Iouvda: ejk blastou' , uiJev mou, ajnev bh":

ajnapesw;n ejkoimhvqh" wJ" levwn kai; wJ" skuv mno". tiv" ejgerei'

aujtovn ; h ajlla; touvtwn oujde; n tw' / ∆Iouvda/ aJrmovttei ajllæ h] th' / ejk

touvtou blasthsavsh/ fulh' /: basilikh; ga;r h\ n au{th, prwvtou me; n

tou' Dabi;d basileuvsanto", ei\ta tw' n ejx ejkeiv nou. kai; pasw' n de;

tw' n a[llwn fulw' n h\ n dunatwtavth: kai; ga;r hJ nivka Dabi;d oJ

basileu;" ajriqmhqh' nai prosevtaxe to; n laov n,i tetrakosiva" tou'∆Iouvda ciliavda" eu |re, tw' n de; a[llwn fulw' n ej nnakosiva", j kai;

mev ntoi kaj n th' / ejrhvmw/ diariqmhqev nte", pleivou" w[ fqhsan tw' n

a[llwn fulw' n.k


ll. f. to; n tw' n sikhmitw' n a[dikon o[leqron a 2 , c –3, : tw` n tw' nsikhmitw' n a[dikon o[leqron c [ ], : tw' n sikhmitw' n a[dikon to; n o[leqron : tw' n sikhmitw' n a[dikon o[leqron Sir. Sch. F.M .

d. Gn .–mme. Gn .mmf. Nm .–mmg. Jos .mmh. Gn .f. mmi. Sm .f.mm j. Sm .mm



you not grow warm to produce numerous children.” He expressed

his anger against Simeon and Levi as well, and, distressed at their

unlawful slaughter of the Shechemites,d prayed to have no share in

their transgression. Nonetheless, he cursed, not them, but theirwicked passions: their wrath, their frenzy. He referred to their wrath

as “desire,” since the word “wrath” is derived from desire, for an an-

gry man desires to take vengeance on his foe.2 And this punishment

of theirs was also a prophecy: “I shall divide them in Jacob and scat-

ter them in Israel.”e Yet it was on account of its exalted position that

the tribe of Levi was scattered, the result being that Levites and

priests were associated with every tribe and received support fromthem. Though they received no inheritance of their own, some cities

and a fixed amount of land in the suburbs were allotted to them in

every tribe.f The tribe of Simeon also received no separate allot-

ment. Instead, according to the patriarch’s prophecy, it was scattered

among the other tribes.g

Then he related the many commendations of Judah: “Judah, may

your brothers praise you! Your hands will be on the back of your

foes. Your father’s sons will bow down to you. Judah is a lion’s cub;

from a shoot you have risen up, my son; you have lain down and

rested like a lion and like a cub. Who will rouse him?”h None of this,

however, is applicable to Judah—only to the tribe descended from

him. It was a royal tribe—David was the first king and was succeed-

ed by his descendants—and of all the tribes it was the most power-

ful. For example, when King David ordered a census of the nation,i

he found Judah to number , and the other tribes ,,3j

and even in the census conducted in the desert they were found to

be more numerous than the other tribes.k

Question

. Theodoret derives ojrghv (wrath) from ojrevgomai, ” stretch out for” or “yearn

for.” This etymology is not linguistically sound.. These, the numbers in Theodoret’s Antiochene text, differ from those in oth-

er forms of the LXX and the MT, where the figures are , and ,.



() ∆Alla; to; ajkribe;" th'" prorrhvsew" th; n e[kbasin e[laben

ejpi; tou' despovtou Cristou', o}" ejk blastou' aj nevteile kata; to; n

patriavrchn ∆Iakw;b kai; kata; to; n profhvthn ∆Hsaiv >an: ejxh'lqe

rJav bdo" ejk th' " rJivzh" ∆Iessaiv, kai; a[nqo" ejk th' " rJivzh" aj nevbh.l

aujtw' / de; kai; to; ajnapesw;n ejkoimhvqh wJ" levwn aJrmovttei kai; wJ"

skuv mno" levonto":m w{sper ga;r oJ levwn, kai; kaqeuvdwn, ejsti

foberov", ou{tw" oJ despotiko;" qav nato" fobero;" kai; tw' / qanavtw/

kai; diabovlw/ gegev nhtai. levonta de; aujto; n kai; skuv mnon kevklhke

levonto" wJ" basileva kai; basilevw" uiJo; n kai; Qeo; n kai; Qeou'

uiJov n: kaiv, kata; to; aj nqrwvpinon gavr, ejk tou' Dabi;d ejblavsthse

kaiv, wJ" Qeov", pro; tw' n aijwv nwn ejk tou' patro;" ejgennhvqh. kai; to;tiv" ejgerei' aujtovn ; th; n a[ faton aujtou' deivknusi duv namin: aujto;"

ga;r eJauto; n aj nevsthse kata; th; n aujtou' provrrhsin: luvsate to;n

nao;n tou' ton, kai; ejn trisi;n hJ mev rai" ejgerw' aujtovn.n

() Proagoreuv ei kai; th'" ejpifaneiva" aujtou' to; n kairov n: oujk

ejkleivyei a[ rcwn ejx ∆Iouvda, kai; hJgouv meno" ejk tw' n mhrw' n aujtou'

e{w" a]n e[lqh/ w | / ajpovkeitai, kai; aujto;" prosdokiva ejqnw' n.o tou'to

th'" tou' Kurivou parousiva" shmei'on safevstaton: ejxevlipon ga;r

tw' n ijoudaivwn, ouj c oiJ basilei'" mov non, ajlla; kai; oiJ ajrcierei'"

kai; oiJ profh'tai w{ste deicqh' nai to; th'" prorrhvsew" tevlo":

tou' ga;r swth'ro" hJmw' n tivktesqai mevllonto", ajllov fuloi aujtw' n

ejkravthsan basilei'"p i{ na oJ aijwv nio" deicqh' / basileuv", hJ tw' n

ejqnw' n prosdokiva, kata; th; n doqei'san para; tou' Qeou' tw' n o{lwn

toi'" patriavrcai" ejpaggelivan: kai; ga;r kai; tw' / ∆Abraavm, kai; tw' /

∆Isaavk, kai; tw' / ∆Iakw;b uJpevsceto oJ tw' n o{lwn Qeo;" ej n tw' /

spevrmati aujtw' n eujloghvsein pav nta ta; e[qnh th'" gh'".q tou'to ej ntau'qa paredhvlwse, to; n ∆Iouvdan eujlogw' n, oJ ∆Iakw;b oJ

patriavrch": oujk ejkleivyei a[ rcwn ejx ∆Iouvda, kai; hJgouv meno" ejk

tw' n mhrw' n aujtou' e{w" a]n e[lqh/ w | / ajpovkeitai, kai; aujto;"

prosdokiva ejqnw' n.r


k. Nm .f.; .mml. Is .mmm. Gn .mmn. Jn .mmo. Gn .mmp. Cf. Lk .f.mm



() Yet the precise sense of this prophecy received its fulfillment

in Christ the Lord, who sprang up from a shoot of Judah according

to the words of the patriarch Jacob and the prophet Isaiah: “A rod

came out of the root of Jesse, and a flower rose up from its root.” l

The verse, “He lay down and rested like a lion and like a lion’s cub,”m

also refers to Christ. As the lion is fearsome even while asleep, so the

Lord’s death proved fearsome both to Death and to the devil. Now,

he referred to him as “a lion” and as “a lion’s cub” since he is a king

and a king’s son, God and Son of God. According to his humanity,

he was descended from David, and as God, he was born of the Fa-

ther before the ages. The verse, “Who will rouse him?” reveals his in-effable power, for he raised himself in fulfillment of his own

prophecy: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I shall raise it

up.”n

() Jacob also foretold the time of his coming: “There will not fail

a ruler from Judah, nor a leader from his thighs until he comes for

whom it is laid up, he the expectation of nations.”o This was the

clearest sign of the Lord’s coming. Not only the kings of the Jews,

but also their chief priests and prophets had come to an end, as the

fulfillment of the prophecy demanded. In fact, at the time of our

Savior’s birth, they were ruled by foreign kings,p so the eternal king,

the “expectation of the nations,” might be revealed according to the

promise given to the patriarchs by the God of the universe. Indeed

God promised Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that he would bless all the

nations of the earth in their offspring.q The patriarch Jacob hinted

at the same idea in his blessing of Judah: “There will not fail a rulerfrom Judah, nor a leader from his thighs until he comes for whom it

is laid up, he the expectation of nations.”r

Question



Ei\ta deivknusi to; n ejx ejqnw' n kai; ijoudaivwn sustav nta laov n:

desmeuvwn pro;" a[ mpelon to;n pw' lon aujtou' kai; th' / e{liki th' "

aj mpevlou to;n pw' lon th' " o[nou aujtou' .s o{ti de; a[ mpelo" oJ ∆Israh;l

wj nomavzeto a{pante" oiJ profh'tai didavskousi: kai; ga;r Dabivd fhsin, a[ mpelon ejx Aijguvptou meth' ra", kai; ta; eJxh'":t kai; oJ

∆Hsaiv >a", aj mpelw;n ejgenhvqh tw' / hjgaphmevnw/ ejn kev rati, ejn tovpw/

|pivoni:u kai; dia; tou' ÔIeremivou oJ tw' n o{lwn e[ fh Qeov", ejgw; de;

ejfuvteusav se a[ mpelon karpofov ron, pa' san ajlhqinhvn:v kai; dia;

tou' nomoqevtou, ejk ga; r aj mpevlou Sodov mwn hJ a[ mpelo" aujtw' n:w

kai; oJ Kuvrio" ej n toi'" iJ eroi'" eujaggelivoi", a[nqrwpov" ti"

ejfuvteusen aj mpelw' na, kai; ejxevdoto aujto;n gewrgoi' ", kai;ajpedhv mhsen.x pw' lon de; to; n ejx ejqnw' n oj nomavzei lao; n wJ"

ajdavmaston o[ nta kai; pwlodavmnhn oujk ejschkovta: tou'to ga;r kai;

oJ Kuvrio" hj / nivxato toi'" ajpostovloi" prostetacw;" eij" th;n

katevnanti kwv mhn y ajpelqei' n kai; lu'sai th; n o[ non th; n dedemev nhn

kai; to; n tauvth" pw'lon,z ej fæ o{ n, fhsiv n, oujdei;" .......ajnqrwvpwn

ejkavqisen:aa ou[te ga;r patriavrch", ou[te nomoqevth", ou[te

profhvth" th'" tw' n ejqnw' n ej frov ntise swthriva". oiJ de; qei'oi

ajpovstoloi, prostacqev nte" maqhteu'sai pav nta ta; e[qnh kai;

baptivsai eij" to; o[ noma tou' Patrov", kai; tou' UiJou', kai; tou'

aJgivou Pneuvmato",bb e[lusan me; n th; n o[ non: toutevsti tw' n

aj nqrwvpwn th; n fuvsin, th; n dedemev nhn tai'" th'" aJmartiva"

seirai'": e[lusan de; kai; to; n pw'lon, to; n ejk tauvth"


|10

q. Gn .; .; .mmr. Gn .mm

l. deivknusi , c 1 , : deiknu;~ Sir. Sch. F.M. = “Next, revealing that there would be a people formed from both the gentiles and the Jews,......” Unless weshould read fhsiv after desmeuvwn (v. next note), a finite verb here seems morelikely than a participle; cf. . (Ei\ta deivknusi th; n ajpo; tou' pavqou"genhsomev nhn eujqumivan).

l. desmeuvwn Sir. Sch. F.M. : desmeuvwn, fhsiv, = “Next, he revealed that there would be a people formed from both the gentiles and the Jews,saying,......” Cf. Q. on Gn (ei\ta deiknu;" th; n th'" ajtopiva" uJperbolhv n,

ejphvgage tou'to) and Q. on Jgs (ei\ta, tetaragmev nou" tou;" polemivou"ijdw; n kai; th; n nivkhn dedhlwmev nhn, sunavgage, fhsiv, to; ej fouvd).

s. Gn .mmt. Ps .mmu. Is .mmv. Jer .mmw. Dt .mmx. Lk .mm y. Lk .mmz. Mt .mmaa. Mk .; Lk .mmbb. Mt .mm



Next, he revealed that there would be a people formed from both

the gentiles and the Jews: “Binding his foal to the vine and his ass’s

foal to the tendril of the vine.”s We learn from all the prophets that

Israel is called a “vine.” David says, “You transplanted a vine fromEgypt” and so on,t and Isaiah, “My beloved had a vineyard on a hill

in a fertile spot.”u Through Jeremiah the God of the universe says, “I

planted you as a fruitful vine, entirely right,”v and through the law-

giver, “Their vine is from the vine of Sodom.”w And the Lord in the

sacred Gospels says, “A man planted a vineyard, let it out to tenant

farmers, and went away.”x He called the gentiles a “foal” since they

were untamed and had no one to tame them. The Lord alluded tothe same idea in his command to the apostles: “Go into the town

opposite, y untie the tethered ass and its foal,z which no one has rid-

den.”aa Now, no patriarch, lawgiver, or prophet had shown an inter-

est in the salvation of the nations. It was the holy apostles who re-

ceived the order to teach all the nations and baptize them in the

name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.bb They untied the

ass (that is, human nature shackled with the cords of sin) as well as

the foal (the people descended from it) and, placing their garments

Question



beblasthkovta laov n, kaiv, ejpiqev nte" aujtw' / ta; eJautw' n iJmavtia:cc

toutevsti th; n cavrin h |" e[tucon: o{soi ga; r eij" Cristo;n

ejbaptivsqhsan, Cristo;n ej neduvsanto:dd kai; euj hv nion ajpev fhnan

to; n ajdavmaston pw'lon, kai; ejpekavqisan aujtw' / to; n despovthn, kai;prosevdhsan aujto; n th' / ajmpevlw/, toutevstin eJautoi'". ejx ijoudaivwn

ga;r oiJ ajpovstoloi kaiv, ouj mov non aujtoiv, ajlla; kai; oiJ

eJbdomhvkonta maqhtaiv,ee kai; oiJ triscivlioi ou}" kata; taujto; n

ejsaghv neuse tw' n ajpostovlwn oJ prw'to",ff kai; oiJ pentakiscivlioi,gg

kai; aiJ pollai; muriavde" peri; w | n oJ trismakavrio" ∆Iavkwbo" tw' /

qeiotavtw/ dielev cqh Pauvlw/.h h ouj mov non toiv nun toi'" ajpostovloi"

sunhv fqhsan oiJ pepisteukovte", ajlla; kai; toi'" tw' n ajpostovlwnmaqhtai'": kaiv, tou'to proorw' n, oJ patriavrch" e[ fh, desmeuvwn

pro;" a[ mpelon to;n pw' lon aujtou' kai; th' / e{liki th' " aj mpevlou to;n

pw' lon th' " o[nou aujtou' .ii

() Ei\ta kai; to; pavqo" prolevgei: plunei' ejn oi[nw/ th;n stolh;n

aujtou' kai; ejn ai{ mati stafulh' " th;n peribolh;n aujtou' :

caropoioi; oiJ ojfqalmoi; aujtou' ajpo; oi[nou, kai; leukoi; oiJ ojdovnte"

aujtou' h] gavla. j j kai; to; me; n sw'ma aujtou' stolh;n oj nomavzei, to;

de; ai |ma oi\ non . ejpeidh; kai; to; n mustiko; n oi\ non ai | ma kevklhken oJ

despovth", ajkouvomen de; kai; tou' eujaggelistou' ∆Iwav nnou

didavskonto" wJ", tou' stratiwvtou nuvxanto" aujtou' th; n pleurav n,

ejxh'lqen ai |ma kai; u{dwr:kk ou |toi de; oiJ krounoi; dia; tou' swvmato"

katerruv hsan: dia; tou'tov fhsin oJ patriavrch", plunei' ejn oi[nw/

th;n stolh;n aujtou' kai; ejn ai{ mati stafulh' " th;n peribolh;n

aujtou' .l l

Ei\ta deivknusi th; n ajpo; tou' pavqou" genhsomev nhn eujqumivan: caropoioi; oiJ ojfqalmoi; aujtou' ajpo; oi[nou: m m euj frosuv nh ga;r

th'" oijkoumev nh" to; swthvrion pavqo". o{ti de; ou{tw to; pavqo"

ejkavlese mavrtu" aujto;" oJ Kuvrio" levgwn, pavter......., eij

dunatovn ......., parelqevtw to; pothv rion tou' to ajpæ ej mou' :nn ou{tw

kai; toi'" uiJoi'" e[ fh Zebedaivou, duvnasqe piei' n to; pothv rion o}


cc. Mt .f.mmdd. Gal .mmee. Lk .mmff. Acts .mmgg. Acts .mmhh. Acts .mmii. Gn .mm jj. Gn .f.mmkk. Jn .mmll. Gn .mmmm. Gn .mmnn. Mt .mmmm



on itcc (the grace they had received, for “All who have been baptized

in Christ have put on Christ”dd), they made the untamed foal obedi-

ent to the rein, set the Lord on it, and secured it to the vine, that is,

to themselves. As you recall, the apostles were Jews by birth, and notonly they but also the seventy disciples,ee the three thousand, whom

the first of the apostles netted on a single occasion,ff the five thou-

sand,gg and the countless others of whom James, the thrice blessed,

spoke to St. Paul.hh Thus, the believers were joined not only to the

apostles but also to the disciples of the apostles. Foreseeing this,

the patriarch said, “Binding his ass to the vine, and his ass’s foal to

the tendril of the vine.”ii

() Next, he foretold the passion: “He will wash his clothing in

wine and his attire in the blood of the grape. His eyes are more

sparkling than wine, his teeth whiter than milk.” jj He called his body

“clothing” and his blood “wine.” Since the Lord also used the term

“blood” of the eucharistic wine, and we hear the evangelist John re-

late that when the soldier pierced his side, there flowed forth blood

and waterkk (these springs streamed through his body), the patri-

arch said, “He will wash his clothing in wine and his attire in the

blood of the grape.”4ll

Next he revealed the joy that would result from the passion: “Hiseyes are more sparkling than wine.”mm The saving passion means joy

for the world. The Lord confirmed that Jacob was here referring to

his passion when he said, “Father, if possible, let this cup pass me

by.”nn Likewise, he had said to the sons of Zebedee, “Are you able to

Question

. Even Theodore of Mopsuestia had taken .f. in a messianic sense; v. Fragg.in Gen. (on vv. f.) and Devreesse, StT vol. , p. ).



ejgw; mevllw pivnein ; oo to; toiv nun caropoio; n tw' n oj fqalmw' n th; n

meta; to; pavqo" euj frosuv nhn dhloi': meta; ga;r to; pavqo" kai; th; n

aj navstasin eij" pa'san ajpestavlhsan th; n oijkoumev nhn oiJ

maqhtaiv, th; n swthrivan prosfevronte" toi'" pisteuvousi. th'" devge didaskaliva" to; dieide;" kai; to; diafane;" leukotavtoi"

ojdou'sin ajpeivkasen: leukoiv, gavr fhsin, oiJ ojdovnte" aujtou' h]

gavla.pp tosau'ta proeivrhken oJ patriavrch", eujlogw' n to; n

∆Iouvdan.

Tou' de; Zaboulw; n proei'pe th; n paravlion oi[khsin,qq tou' de;

∆Issav car th; n ghponivan,rr tou' de; Da' n, kata; mev n tina", ta; uJpo;

tou' Samyw; n gegenhmev na: ejk tauvth" ga;r h\ n th'" fulh'",ss

sunhriqmhvqh de; kai; toi'" kritai'",tt kai; dia; tou'tov fhsin, Da;n

krinei' to;n eJautou' lao;n wJsei; kai; miva fulh; ejn ∆Israhvl.uu e[ nioi

dev fasi ta; kata; th; n Lavi>san, th; n nu' n Paneavda kaloumev nhn,

proagoreu'sai: ejxapiv nh" gavr tine" ajpo; tauvth" oJrmwvmenoi th'"

fulh'", tauvth/ prosbalov nte" th' / povlei, ei\lov n te kata; kravto",

kai; w[ /khsan, kai; th; n oijkeivan aujth' / proshgorivan ejpevqhkan: Da;n

ga;r aujth; n ejkavlesan.vv

() ∆Egw; de; oi\mai to; qei'on Pneu'ma, ta; kata; to; n swth'ra

to; n hJmevteron dia; tou' patriavrcou proqespivsan, kai; ta; kata;

to; n aj ntiv criston dia; tauvth" eijpei' n th'" prorrhvsew". sfovdra

de; aujtw' / kai; ta; gegrammev na aJrmovttei: Davn, gavr fhsi, krinei'

to;n eJautou' lao;n wJsei; kai; miva fulh; ejn ∆Israhvl.ww w{sper, gavr

fhsin, ejk th'" ∆Iouvda fulh'" oJ Swth;r kai; Kuvrio" hJmw' n

blasthvsa", diaswvsei th; n oijkoumev nhn, ou{tw" ejk th'" tou' Da' n

fulh'" o[ fi" ojlevqrio" ejxeleuvsetai: tou'to ga;r levgei: kai;genhqhvtw Da;n o[fi" ejfæ oJdou' , ejgkaqhv meno" ejpi; triv bou, davknwn

ptev rnan i{ppou, kai; pesei' tai oJ iJppeu;" eij" ta; ojpivsw, th;n

swthrivan perimevnwn Kurivou.xx ejpeidh; gavr, ajpavtai"


l. fhsin , , Sir. Sch. : fhsin e[ fh F.M. = “Hence the statement, he said,......”

oo. Mt .mmpp. Gn .mmqq. Gn .mmrr. Gn .f.mmss. Jgs .mmtt. Jgs .mmuu. Gn .mmvv. Jos .f.mmww. Gn .mmxx. Gn .f.mm



drink the cup that I am about to drink?”oo So the sparkling of the

eyes suggests the joy after the passion. After the passion and the res-

urrection, the disciples were sent into the whole world to bring sal-

vation to believers. He likened the perfect clarity of their teaching togleaming white teeth: “His teeth are whiter than milk.”pp These were

the prophecies pronounced by the patriarch in the blessing of Ju-

dah.

He also foretold a coastal settlement for Zebulun,qq farming for

Issachar,rr and for Dan, according to some commentators, the deeds

of Samson, who was from this tribess

and was numbered among the judges.tt Hence the statement, “Dan will judge his people as one

tribe in Israel.”uu On the other hand, several commentators have

maintained that this was a prediction of the fate of Leshem, now

called Paneas. Some men from that tribe made a sudden advance on

this city, attacked it, took it by force, occupied it, and gave it their

own name, calling it “Dan.” 5vv

() My own view is that the divine Spirit, who had prophesied

through the patriarch regarding our Savior, spoke in this prophecy

about the Antichrist. This passage fits him quite well: “Dan will

judge his people as one tribe in Israel.”ww That is, just as our Savior

and Lord, descended from the tribe of Judah, will save the world, so

the deadly serpent will emerge from the tribe of Dan. This is the

meaning of “Let Dan become a serpent in the way, lying on the path

to bite a horse’s heel, and the rider will fall backwards, awaiting theLord’s salvation.”xx Since, with every possible means of deception, he

tries to decoy people and hunt them to the death, he is likened to a

Question

. Theodoret probably drew from Diodore the first two interpretations, bothhistorically based, of the oracle regarding Dan. As Guinot notes (p. ), a frag-

ment containing the second (Deconinck, frag. ) is still extant.



pantodapai'" kecrhmev no", peira'tai tou;" fenakizomev nou"

ajgreuv ein eij" o[leqron, o[ fei tini; aujto; n ajpeikavzei parav tina

trivbon fwleuvonti kai; toi'" pariou'si lumainomev nw/. i{ppon de;

oi\mai kalei' n aujto; n to; sw'ma, ejpibavthn de; th; n yuchv n: to; de; eij" toujpivsw pesei' n, toutevstin u{ption kei'sqai, to; n qav naton

paradhloi': toiou'to ga;r tw' n teqnewvtwn to; sch'ma. dia; de; th'"

ptevrnh" th; n ajpavthn hj / nivxato. ejpeidh; ga;r tou;" me; n ejxapata' /,

toi'" de; pagcalevpa" ejpifevrei kolavsei", dia; tou' i{ppou to;

sw'ma dedhvlwken, ou | daknomev nou kai; diafqeiromev nou, oJ

qav nato" giv netai, tou;" th'" ejlpivdo" toi'" uJpomev nousi komivzwn

karpouv": karpo;" de; th'" toiauvth" ejlpivdo" hJ swthriva.Prolevgei kai; tw' / Ga;d ta;" ejsomev na" aujtw' / para; tw' n

lh/strikw' n ej fovdwn ejpiboulav": tou'to ga;r levgei: peirathv rion

peirateuvsei aujtovn: proagoreuv ei de; kai; th; n ejsomev nhn aujtou'

nivkhn: kai; aujtov" ......., gavr fhsi, peirateuvsei aujto;n kata;

povda": yy wJsauvtw" de; kai; tou' ∆Ash;r th; n sitofovron cwvran kai;

tou' Nefqalei;m th; n eij" plh'qo" ejpivdosin: tou'to ga;r e[ fh:

stevleco" ajneimevnon ejpididou;" ejn tw' / gennhv mati kavllo".zz

() Ei\ta tou' ∆Iwsh; f to; n fqov non kai; ta;" pantodapa;"

ejpideivxa" ejpiboulav", th; n qeivan uJmnei' khdemonivan, diæ h |" tou;"

pepolemhkovta" nenivkhke: sunetriv bh, gavr fhsi, meta; kravtou"

ta; tovxa aujtw' n, kai; ejxeluvqh neu' ra braciovnwn ceirw' n aujtw' n dia;

cei' ra dunatou' ∆Iakwv b. ejkei' qen oJ katiscuvsa" ∆Israh;l para;

Qeou' tou' patrov" sou: kai; ej bohvqhsev soi oJ Qeo;" oJ ej mo;" kai;

eujlovghsev se eujlogivan ouj ranou' a[nwqen kai; eujlogivan gh' "

ej couvsh" pavnta. e{neken eujlogiva" masqw' n kai; mhvtra", eujlogiva" patrov" sou kai; mhtrov" sou, uJperivscusa" uJpe; r eujlogiva" oj revwn

moniv mwn kai; ejpiqumiva" qinw' n aijwnivwn. e[sontai ejpi; kefalh' "

∆Iwsh;f kai; ejpi; korufh' " w |n hJghvsato ajdelfw' n.aaa dia; pav ntwn de;

touvtwn u{mnhse to; n oijkei'on Qeov n, o}" kai; aujto; n kreivttona tou'


yy. Gn .mmzz. Gn .mmaaa. Gn .–mm



serpent lurking by the path and attacking the passers-by. In my

view, the “horse” signifies the body, the “rider” the soul, and “falling

backwards”—that is, lying on one’s back—death, since this is the

posture of death. The mention of the “heel” hints at deception.Since the Antichrist deceives some and afflicts others with inhuman

chastisements, the “horse” suggests the body, because bitten and dis-

abled, it dies, though death brings the fruit of hope to those who

persevere, the fruit of this hope being salvation.

Jacob also told Gad that he would one day suffer the inroads of raiders. This is the meaning of “A nest of pirates will plunder him.”

He also foretold his future victory: “He will plunder him in close

pursuit.” yy Likewise, he prophesied the grain-rich country of Asher

and Naphtali’s growth in numbers; this is the meaning of “A branch

coming forth yields beauty in its bud.”6zz

() Then he referred to the malicious schemes against Joseph and

sang the praises of God’s providence by which he vanquished those

who quarreled with him: “Mightily were their shafts smashed, and

the sinews of their arms undone by the hand of the Strength of Ja-

cob. Thence comes the one who gave strength to Israel from the

God of your father. My God helped you and blessed you with a

blessing of heaven above and a blessing of the earth that contains all

things. Because of a blessing of breasts and womb, a blessing of your

father and your mother, you surpassed the blessings of immovablemountains and the desires of eternal mounds. They will be upon

the head of Joseph and on the brow of the brothers he led.” 7aaa In all

this he sang the God of his family, who made him stronger than the

Question

. Verse . is obscure. Speiser renders (p. ) the MT: “Naphtali is a hind letloose / That brings forth lovely fawns.” The LXX, relying on a pointing of the con-sonantal text different from that of the MT, reads “branch” (stevleco~) rather

than “hind,” and “bud” (gennhvmati) rather than “fawns.”. Verse . exhibits textual difficulties in both the Hebrew and the LXX; v.

Speiser on .a.



pepolemhkovto" ajpev fhnen ajdelfou' kai; to; n uiJo; n a[macon

e[deixen, para; tosouvtwn ajdelfw' n ejpibouleuqev nta. tauvth" dev,

fhsiv, th'" khdemoniva" tetuv chka", th'" eij" tou;" gegennhkovta"

qerapeiva" misqo; n komisavmeno". tou'to ga;r levgei: e{neken eujlogiva" masqw' n kai; mhvtra", eujlogiva" patrov" sou kai; mhtrov"

sou: ghrokovmo" ga;r spoudai'o" tou' patro;" ejgegov nei.bbb ta; de;

eij" aujto; n gegenhmev na koina; aujtou' te kai; th'" mhtro;" ei\ naiv

fhsin: th'" ga;r aujth'" a] n kajkeiv nh th'" khdemoniva" ajphvlausen

eij mh; qa'tton uJpexh'lqe to; n bivon.ccc ei\ta ejpeuv cetai aujtw' /

perifav neian w{ste genevsqai aujto; n para; pa'sin ejpivshmon:

uJperivscusa", gavr fhsin, uJpe; r eujlogiva" oj revwn moniv mwn kai;ejpiqumiva" qinw' n aijwnivwn. e[sontai ejpi; kefalh' " ∆Iwsh;f kai; ejpi;

korufh' " w |n hJghvsato ajdelfw' n. tou;" dh; qi' na" oJ ∆Akuvla"

bounou;" hJrmhv neusen. ejpeidh; toiv nun povrrwqen oJrw' ntai kai; oiJ

bounoi; kai; ta; o[rh, touvtoi" paraplhsivw" eu[ cetai gnwvrimon

aujto; n genevsqai kai; pav ntwn perifanevstaton.

() To; n de; Beniami; n luvkon a{ rpaga kevklhke dia; to;

sumbebhko;" pavqo" th' / touvtou fulh' /. dio; ejphvgage: to; prwi>no;n

e[detai.......kai; eij" to; eJspev ra" diadwvsei trofhvn.ddd ej n ga;r th' /

prwvth/ kai; th' / deutevra/ sumplokh' / nenikhkovte",eee u{steron

a[rdhn ajpwvlonto, plh; n ojlivgwn tinw' n a[gan eujariqmhvtwn,fff ou}"

oiJ nenikhkovte" oijktivrante", dou' nai me; n aujtoi'" gunai'ka" dia;

to; n o{rkon uJpeivdonto,ggg eJtevrw" de; aujtoi'" to; n gavmon

ejmhcanhvsanto.hhh eijdev nai de; crh; w{" tine" eij" to; n qespevsion

Pau'lon thv nde th; n provrrhsin ei{lkusan. luvkou ga;r divkhn

ejlumaiv neto th; n ejkklhsivan, kata; tou;" oi[kou" eijsporeuovmeno",iii

u{steron de; th; n pneumatikh; n trofh; n th' / oijkoumev nh/ dievdwke.

Tau'ta tou' ∆Iakw;b eijrhkovto" kai; th; n oijkeivan teleuth; n

memhnukovto", oJ suggrafeu;" e[ fh, kaiv, ejxav ra" tou;" povda" ejpi;


bbb. Cf. Gn .–mmccc. Gn .–mmddd. Gn .mmeee. Jgs .–mmfff. Jgs .–mmggg. Jgs .mmhhh. Jgs .–mmiii. Acts .mmmm



brother who quarreled with him, and showed his son to be invinci-

ble when so many of his brothers conspired against him. He de-

clared, “You received this care as the recompense for your care of

your parents”—this is the meaning of “Because of a blessing of breasts and womb, a blessing of your father and your mother”—for

he was conscientious in caring for his elderly father.bbb He declared

that what Joseph did for him he did also for his mother, as she

would have enjoyed the same care if she had not previously depart-

ed this life.ccc He then prayed for fame for Joseph, that he become

renowned throughout the whole world: “You surpassed the bless-

ings of immovable mountains and the desires of eternal mounds.They will be upon the head of Joseph and on the brow of the broth-

ers he led.” Instead of “mounds” Aquila rendered “hills.”8 Since hills

and mountains are visible from afar, Jacob prayed that Joseph would

be well-known like them and more conspicuous than everyone else.

() He called Benjamin “a ravenous wolf” because of what hap-

pened to this tribe. Hence, he added, “He will eat in the morning

and distribute his food for the evening.”ddd Though victorious in the

first and second engagements,eee they were subsequently wiped out,

except for very few survivors.fff Though they took pity on the surviv-

ing Benjaminites, the victors were reluctant to give them wives on

account of the ban,ggg and so they contrived a novel way for them to

marry.hhh Now, you should know that some commentators have ap-

plied this prophecy to the divinely inspired Paul; he damaged the

Church like a wolf, going from house to house,iii but later distrib-uted spiritual nourishment to the whole world.9

According to the historian, after Jacob had made this speech and

predicted his own death, “He lifted his feet onto the bed, expired,

Question

. Aquila substituted bounov~ (hill) for qiv~, a word that normally refers to amound of sand or to the seashore.

. This interpretation is first attested in Hippolytus (H. Achelis, Hippolyt’s

Kleinere, etc., “Griechische Fragmente zur Genesis,” #). It was adopted by Cyrilof Alexandria (Glaph. Gen. ) and rejected by Diodore (Deconinck, frag. ), whowas probably Theodoret’s source; v. Guinot, p. .



th;n klivnhn, ejxevlipe kai; prosetevqh pro;" to;n lao;n aujtou' . jjj dia;

de; touvtwn tw' n lovgwn hj / nivxato th; n ejlpivda th'" aj nastavsew": eij

ga;r pantavpasi diefqeivronto kai; mh; eij" e{teron metevbainon

bivon, oujk a] n ei\pe, prosetevqh pro;" to;n lao;n aujtou' . tou'to de;kai; pro;" to; n ∆Abraa;m aujto;" oJ tw' n o{lwn e[ fh Qeov": su; de;

ajpeleuvsh/ pro;" tou;" patev ra" sou ejn eij rhvnh/, trafei;" ejn ghv rei

kalw' /.k k k ej nteu'qen kai; oJ Kuvrio" th; n tw' n saddoukaivwn

ajpistivan dihvlegxen, eijrhkwv", o{ti de; ejgeiv rontai oiJ nekroiv— l l l

oujk ajnevgnwte,.......ejgw; oJ Qeo;" ∆Abraav m, kai;.......∆Isaavk,

kai;.......∆Iakwv b ; oujk e[stin oJ Qeo;" Qeo;" nekrw' n, ajlla; zwvntwn.mmm


jjj. Gn .mmkkk. Gn .mmlll. Lk .mmmmm. Mk .



and was gathered to his people.” jjj With this last clause he hinted at

the hope of resurrection. After all, if they had disappeared without

trace and not gone to another life, he would not have said, “He was

gathered to his people.” The God of the universe himself made thesame statement to Abraham: “You will depart to your ancestors in

peace, nourished to a fine old age.”kkk Thus, refuting the unbelief of

the Sadducees, the Lord said, “As to the resurrection of the dead,lll

have you not read, ‘I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob’?

God is not God of the dead, but of the living.”mmm

Question



QUAESTIONES IN EXODUM

Pw'" nohtevon to; cudai' oi ejgevnonto; a

Ouj c, w{" tine" nenohvkasin, uJbristikw'" aujto; tevqeiken, ajlla;to; plh'qo" dedhvlwken: ou{tw", gavr fhsin, hujxhvqhsan wJ" kata;

pavsh" ejkeiv nh" ejkceqh' nai th'" gh'". ou{tw kai; oiJ peri; to; n

∆Akuvlan hJrmhv neusan. tou'to de; kai; ta; eJxh'" dhloi':

ejplhvqune ......., gavr fhsin, hJ gh' aujtouv":b kai; metæ ojlivga, kaqovti

de; aujtou;" ejtapeivnoun, tosou' ton pleivou" ejgivnonto kai; i[scuon

sfovdra sfovdra.c

Tiv ejstin ejpeidh; ejfobou' nto aiJ mai' ai to;n Qeovn, ejpoivhsan

eJautai' " oijkiva" ; a

A–6 [ ], C, * = mss.

a. Ex .mmb. Ex .mmc. Ex .

A –6 [ ], B, C, = mss.

a. Ex .mm



ON EXODUS 1

How are we to understand “They proved prolific”?2a

He did not employ the term as an insult, as some commentatorshave understood it, but rather to indicate their vast numbers. His

meaning is that they grew so much that they spread throughout all

that land. This is how Aquila and his school rendered it. The sequel

also indicates this: “The land multiplied them”;b and a little later,

“The more they oppressed them, the more numerous they became

and grew very greatly in strength.”c

What is the meaning of “Because the midwives feared God, they

built themselves households”?a

. Of Theodoret’s Antiochene predecessors, Chrysostom has no commentary

on books subsequent to Genesis. For Theodore of Mopsuestia, though the Nestori-an Ebedjesu (“early fourteenth century”) mentions a three-volume commentary on Genesis, the Syriac Chronicle of Seert (“perhaps of the first half of the thirteenthcentury”) speaks of a three-volume commentary on the Pentateuch; v. Devreesse,Essai, notes f., pp. f. Devreesse apparently takes (p. ) the notice in the Chronicle as referring only to the work on Genesis. He has culled (pp. –) from the Cate-na Nikephori (CPG #C) three excerpts bearing on Ex , which he believes actual-ly derive from a commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews; cf. notes , to the“Introduction to Theodoret’ s Life and Works.” For French translations and discus-sions of the catalogues of Ebedjesu and the Chronicle of Seert, v. J.M. Vosté, “La

chronologie de l’activité littéraire de Théodore de Mopsueste,” RB (), pp.–, esp. pp. –.

. The adjective cudai'o~, used in Ex . to mean “prolific,” may also mean



Although Pharaoh ordered them to destroy the male children,

their piety would not permit them to collaborate with the law of in-

fanticide.b Hence, as a reward, God granted them many a blessing.

How did Pharaoh’s daughter know that the child was a Hebrew?a

This was clear from his circumcision. Thus, we can deduce that,at that time, the Egyptians were not yet circumcised, although later,

in emulation of the Hebrews, they embraced the law of circumci-

sion. Hence, the God of the universe said through Jeremiah, “I shall

call to account all those circumcised in their foreskin: Egypt and the

sons of Edom” and so on.1b

Why did Moses marry a foreign wife?a

He was a type of Christ the Lord, who, though a Jew by bodily

descent, called the gentile Church his “bride.”

Question

“ordinary,” “vulgar”; v. LSJ sub uoce II.. As Guinot notes (p. ), Theodoret rejects the interpretation of Clement of Alexandria, who, taking the term in this neg-ative sense, had understood it to refer to the spiritual blindness of the Jews. V.Strom. ... for his derisive rhyme jIoudaivwn tw` n cudaivwn and cf. Strom.....

. Theodoret declares also in Q. on Gn that the Egyptians learned circumci-sion from the Jews. This practice was, however, widespread in the ancient NearEast, excluding Mesopotamia; v. Speiser, pp. f.



Tinev" fasin a[ggelon oj fqh' nai tw' / Mwu>sh' / ej n tw' / bavtw/.

JH aj navgnwsi" tou' cwrivou to; n oj fqev nta dhloi': w[fqh.......,

gavr fhsin, aujtw' / a[ggelo" Kurivou ejn flogi; puro;" ....... bavtou:a kai;

metæ ojlivga, wJ" de; ei\ de Kuv rio" o{ti prosavgei ijdei' n, ejkavlesen

aujto;n Kuv rio" ejk tou' bavtou:b kai; pavlin meta; braceva, kai; ei\ pen

aujtw' /, ejgwv eij mi oJ Qeo;" .......∆Abraav m, kai; oJ Qeo;" ∆Isaavk, kai; oJ

Qeo;" ∆Iakwv b:c kai; eujqu;" ejphvgagen, ajpevstreye de; Mwu>sh' " to;provswpon aujtou' : hujlabei' to ga; r katablevyai ejnwvpion tou'

Qeou` : d kai; ejpisunh' yen, ijdw;n ei\ don th;n kavkwsin tou' laou' mou,

tou' ejn Aijguvptw/, kai; th' " kraugh' " aujtw' n h[kousa, kai; ta; eJxh'":e

kai; au\qi", ejgwv eij mi oJ w[n:.......tavde ej rei' " toi' " uiJoi' " ∆Israhvl: oJ

w]n ajpevstalkev me pro;" uJ ma' ".f kai; o{lon de; to; cwrivon deivknusi

Qeo; n o[ nta to; n oj fqev nta.

Kevklhke de; aujto; n kai; a[ggelon i{ na gnw'men wJ" oJ oj fqei;" oujk e[stin oJ Qeo;" kai; pathvr: tiv no" ga;r a[ggelo" oJ pathvr; ajllæ oJ

monogenh;" uiJov", oJ megavlh" boulh' " a[ggelo",g oJ toi'" iJ eroi'"

maqhtai'" eijrhkwv", pavnta o{sa h[kousa para; tou' patrov" mou

dedhvlwka uJ mi' n.h w{sper de; to; a[ggelo" o[ noma tevqeiken, ouj c

uJpourgivan tina; shmaiv nwn, ajlla; tou' monogenou'" ejmfaiv nwn to;

provswpon, ou{tw pavlin aujtou' kai; th; n fuvsin kai; th; n ejxousivan

khruvttei, levgwn aujto; n eijrhkev nai, ejgwv eij mi oJ w[n, |kai; ejgw; oJ

Qeo;" .......∆Abraav m, kai; oJ Qeo;" ∆Isaavk, kai; oJ Qeo;"

∆Iakwv b:.......tou' tov moi.......o[noma aijwvnion kai; mnhmovsunon genew' n

geneai' ".i tau'ta de; kai; th; n qeivan oujsivan dhloi' kai; to; aijwv nion

kai; to; ajiv >dion deivknusin.


|31

A –6 [ ], B, , (inc.) = mss.

a. Ex .mmb. Ex .mmc. Ex .mmd. Ex .mme. Ex .mmf. Ex .mmg. Is .mmh. Jn .mmi. Ex .f.



Tiv dhloi' to; to; n bavton kaiv esqai kai; mh; katakaiv esqai;a

Th; n tou' Qeou' duv namin kai; filanqrwpivan khruvttei, o{ti dhv,

fruganwvdh o[ nta, to; a[sbeston oujk aj nhvliske pu'r. oi\mai de; kai;

e{tera dia; touvtou paradhlou'sqai: kai; o{ti oJ ∆Israhvl, uJpo; tw' n

aijguptivwn ejpibouleuovmeno", oujk aj nalwqhvsetai, ajlla; kreivttwn

e[stai tw' n polemouv ntwn, kai; wJ" oJ monogenhv", ej nanqrwphvsa"

kai; parqenikh; n oijkhvsa" nhduv n, fulavxei th; n parqenivanajkhvraton. fasi; dev tine" ej n bavtw/ fanh' nai to; n Qeov n, kai; oujk

ej n a[llw/ futw' /, dia; to; mh; duv nasqaiv tina ejk bavtou gluv yai Qeov n:

eijko;" ga;r h\ n ijoudaivou" kai; tou'to tolmh'sai ei[per ej n a[llw/

w[ fqh futw' /.

Dia; tiv prosetav cqh oJ Mwu>sh'" to; uJpovdhma lu'sai;a

Tinev" fasin i{ na ta;" biwtika;" ajporriv yh/ merivmna", ta;" tw' /

qnhtw' / bivw/ sunezeugmev na": nekra; ga;r tw' n uJpodhmavtwn ta;

devrmata: tine;" de; i{ na gumnoi'" toi'" posi; n aJgiavsh / th; n gh' n.


A –6 [ ], B, C, = mss.

a. Ex .

A – 6 [ ], B, C, = mss.

l. . i{ na gumnoi~ toi~ posi; n aJgiavsh/ J.P. : i{ na gumnoi~ fasi; toi`~posi; n aJgiavsh/ Sir. Sch. : i{ na gumnoi~, fhsiv, toi~ posi; n aJgiavsh/ F.M. I takethe verb indicating attribution ( fhsi) as an inept gloss. If F.M.’s note ad loc. isreliable, the plural lacks all ms. support. The singular, of course, disagrees innumber with the preceding plural pronoun (tine; ;~). Whether singular or plural,it is oddly placed, and the transposed order of C, (i{ na gumnoi~ toi~

posi; n aJgiavsh/, fhsiv) suggests that its claim to a place in the text wasuncertain. Cf. the critical note for Q. on Gn.

a. Ex .mm



What is the meaning of the verse “the bush was burning but not

consumed?”a

The fact that the inextinguishable fire did not consume the dry

wood proclaims God’s power and loving-kindness. In my view, how-

ever, this suggests a number of other points as well: that Israel would

not be consumed when subject to the schemes of the Egyptians but

would prevail over its enemies, and that, when the Only-begotten be-

came man and occupied the virgin’s womb, he would preserve hermaidenhood from defilement. Some commentators have claimed

that God appeared in the bush rather than any other plant since no

one can carve an image of God out of a bush. Indeed, the Jews prob-

ably would have attempted this if he had appeared in any other plant.

Why was Moses ordered to take off his sandals? a

Some commentators have claimed he was to cast aside earthly

cares linked to this mortal life, since the leather of sandals is dead.

Others say he was to sanctify the ground with his bare feet. But I ac-

Question



ejgw; de; oujdevteron touvtwn prosiv emai: prw'ton me; n gavr, oujdevpw

ou[te ajrciereu;" ou[te profhvth" ejkeceirotov nhto: e[peita dev, tou'

Qeou' to; n tovpon kaqierwvsanto" kai; touvtou cavrin a{gion

oj nomavsanto", peritto; n oi\mai levgein Mwu>seva toi'" posi; naJgiavsai to; n tovpon.

Duvo toiv nun hJgou'mai dia; touvtou dhlou'sqai: prw'ton me; n ga;r

eujlabevsteron aujto; n tw' /de tw' / lovgw/ kaqivsthsin w{ste meta;

devou" tw' n prostattomev nwn ajkou'sai: e[peita propaideuv etai

pw'" crh; tou;" iJ ereva" ej n th' / skhnh' / leitourgei' n: gumnoi'" ga;r

kajkei' noi posi; ta;" leitourgiva" ejpetevloun kai; ta;" qusiva".b

Proeidw;" oJ Qeo;" tou' Faraw; to; duspeiqev", tiv dhv pote mh;

ejx ajrch'" aujto; n ejkovlasen;

{ Oti prohv /dei dedhvlwken: oi\ da, gavr fhsin, o{ti ouj prohvsetai

uJ ma' " Faraw; basileu;" Aijguvptou .......eij mh; meta; ceiro;"

krataia' ". kai; ejkteivna" th;n cei' ra, patavxw tou;" aijguptivou" .a

ajllæ o{mw", ajgaqo;" w] n kai; filav nqrwpo", kolavzein ejk mov nh"

prognwvsew" oujk aj nev cetai, ajllæ aj namev nei tw' n pragmavtwn to;

tevlo", kai; deivknusin a{pasi th'" timwriva" to; divkaion. a[llw" te

kai; pollw' / dikaiovteron to; th; n ejkeiv nou gumnwqh' nai ponhrivan

tou' to; n Qeo; n ajphnh' nomisqh' nai: eij ga;r pro; tw' n ejlevgcwn

ejkovlasen, e[doxen a] n kai; wjmo;" ei\ nai kai; a[diko". nu' n de; kai; tou'

Qeou' to; makrovqumon devdektai, kajkeiv nou to; dussebe;" kai;qhriw'de" ejlhvlegktai.


b. Cf. Ex .–.

A –6 [ ], B, C, = mss.

a. Ex .f.



cept neither of these views. To begin with, no high priest or prophet

had yet been appointed. Also, as God had consecrated the place and

hence called it holy, I think it idle to claim that Moses sanctified the

place with his feet.

In my view, this event indicates two things. First, God put him

into a more reverent frame of mind, and Moses heeded his com-

mands in fear. Next, he received prior instruction in how the priests

ought to conduct worship in the tabernacle, as they also used to

conduct rituals and sacrifices barefoot.b

Since God foresaw Pharaoh’s disobedience, why did he not pun-

ish him from the outset?

That he knew in advance is indicated by “I know that Pharaoh

king of Egypt will not let you go except with a mighty hand. I shall

stretch out my hand and strike the Egyptians.”a Yet, in his goodness

and loving-kindness, he would not punish him solely on the basis of

foreknowledge; instead he awaited the outcome of events and

showed everyone the justice of his retribution. Above all, justice re-

quired that the Pharaoh’s wickedness be laid bare rather than that

God be thought harsh. If he had punished him before conviction, he

would have seemed both cruel and unjust, while, this way, God’s

long-suffering was demonstrated and Pharaoh’s impious ferocity exposed.

Question



Dia; tiv prw'ton shmei'on devdwke th'" rJavbdou th; n eij" o[ fin

metabolhv n;a

jEpeidhv, logikh'" oJ Faraw; fuvsew" w[ n, wjmovthti kata; tw' n

eJbraivwn ej crhvsato kai; to; qeoeide;" qhriw'de" ajpev fhne, th; n

rJavbdon, diæ h |" aujto; n ejmastivgwsen, eij" o[ fin metablhqh' nai

prosevtaxen: eij" e[legcon me; n th'" ejkeiv nou qhriwdiva", e[mfasin

de; th'" dusmeneiva". kai; ga;r th' / tou' o[ few" ajra' / kai; tou'to

prostevqeiken: e[ cqran qhvsw ajna; mevson sou kai; ajna; mevson th' " gunaikov", kai; ta; eJxh'".b


A –6 [ ], B, C, = mss.

a. Ex .–mmb. Gn .



Why did God give as his first sign the transformation of the rod

into a serpent?a

Pharaoh, though endowed with human rationality, turned a

God-given faculty into ferocity and behaved with savage cruelty to-

wards the Hebrews. Therefore, God commanded that the rod, with

which he scourged him, be turned into a serpent to reprove

Pharaoh’s ferocity and reveal his hostility. In fact, he had added to

the curse of the serpent, “I shall put enmity between you and thewoman” and so on.b

Question



JH levprwsi" th'" ceiro;" tiv dhloi';a

jEn eujsebeiva/ trafev n, to; gev no" tou' ∆Iakw;b eij" th; n Ai[gupton

eijselhvluqen ajllæ ejkei' tw' n aijguptivwn metevmaqe th; n ajsevbeian,

th'" ejkeiv nwn de; douleiva" ajpallageiv", to; n tw' n o{lwn ejpevgnw

Qeov n. dedhvlwke toiv nun dia; th'" ajlloiwvsew" th'" ceiro;" th; n

levprwsin aujtw' n kai; th; n kavqarsin.

Pro;" de; touvtoi" kai; e{teron oJ despovth" wj /konovmei Qeov".

ejpeidh; ga;r h[melle to; n peri; tw' n leprw' n tiqev nai novmon kai;ajkaqav rtou" touvtou" prosagoreuv ein,b oujde; n de; tw' n ajkousivwn

ajkavqarton, e{tera de ; dia; touvtwn oijkonomw' n, touvtoi" ej crhvsato

toi'" novmoi", a{per, ej n ejkeiv noi" genovmenoi toi'" cwrivoi", su; n

Qew' / fav nai dhlwvsomen, ejlevprwse tou' nomoqevtou th; n cei'ra,

tou;" ta; tevleia pepaideumev nou" didavskwn wJ" oujde; n tw' n

toiouvtwn ajkavqarton: hJ ga;r ta; qauvmata ejkei' na ejrgasamev nh

dexiav, lepra; provteron genomev nh, tai'" qeoshmeivai" uJpouvrghsekai; ta; stoicei'a metevbalen. touvtw/ de; kai; to; n nomoqevthn

ejpaivdeusen mh; mevga fronei' n ajllæ eijdev nai th; n fuvsin, th'"

leprwqeivsh" aj namimnhskovmenon dexia'".


A –6 [ ], B, C, = mss.

l. e{tera de; a [ ], , B, , , Pic. (Sch.) : e{tera Sir. Sch. F.M. = “As he was planning to establish a law about lepers and declare them ‘unclean,’ but there is nothing unclean where there is no act of will, he made use of these laws to effect other purposes of his own, as, with God’s help, we shall indicate when we come to those passages. He made the lawgiver’s hand leprous to teach the perfectly instructed that no such thing is unclean .” The connective particle de; is needed tobind e{tera.......toi~ novmoi~ to the conjunction ejpeidh; and divide it from thefollowing main verb ejlevprwse. The reading preferred by Sir., Sch., and F.M.separates e{tera, etc. from the conjunction ejpeidh;; requiring the initiation of anew sentence at ejlevprwse, it creates a very unlikely asyndeton.

l. touvtw/ de; J.P. : touto de; c [ ], B, : dia; touto de; = “On account of this, God also instructed the lawgiver” : dia; touvtou de; = “By means of this, God also instructed the lawgiver” : ejk touvtou de; , C, , Sir. Sch. = “From this point on,God also instructed the lawgiver” : touvtou de; F.M. Only the dative gives the appro-priate sense; cf. Thdt., Dan. . (Touvtw/ de; kataplhvxa~, etc.) and Q. . on Gn(touvtwÛ me; n.......mhcanwvmeno~).

a. Ex .f.mmb. Lv .–



What was the significance of the leprous hand?a

Jacob’s family, raised in right religion, entered Egypt, where they

learned the idolatry of the Egyptians, but when freed from slavery to

the Egyptians, they acknowledged the God of the universe. Thus,

through the change in his hand, he revealed their leprosy and their

cleansing.

In addition, the Lord God had something else in mind. As he was

planning to establish a law about lepers and declare them “un-clean,”b but there is nothing unclean where there is no act of will,

and he made use of these laws to effect other purposes of his own

(as, with God’s help, we shall indicate when we come to those pas-

sages), he made the lawgiver’s hand leprous to teach the perfectly in-

structed that no such thing is unclean. Indeed, the right hand that

worked those marvels ministered to the divine signs and wrought

changes in the elements only after it had previously been leprous. Inthis way God also instructed the lawgiver not to become presump-

tuous, but to acknowledge his nature whenever he recalled that

right hand covered in leprosy.

Question



JUpourgw' / kecrhmev no" tw' / Mwu>sh' / tw' n o{lwn oJ Kuvrio", tiv dhv

pote ijscnov fwnon aujto; n dievplase kai; braduvglwsson;a

jEpeidh; tou'to ma'llon th; n duv namin ejdeivknu th; n qeivan:

w{sper ga;r aJlieva",b kai; telwv na",c kai; skutotovmou"d khvruka"

ajlhqeiva" kai; didaskavlou" eujsebeiva" ej ceirotov nhsen, ou{tw dia;

fwnh'" ajsqenou'" kai; glwvssh" bradeiva" kathv /scune tou;"

aijguptivwn sofouv".e

Pw'" nohtevon to; ejgw;.......sklhrunw' th;n kardivan Farawv; a

() Mavla rJav /dion h\ n tw' / Qew' / meta; th; n prwvthn ajpeivqeian

panwleqrivan ejpagagei' n ajllæ, aj fravstw/ kecrhmev no" makroqumiva/,

metriva" aujtw' / paideiva" ejphvgage. tau'ta de; aj ntivtupon ejpoiv eith; n ejkeiv nou kardivan: oijovmeno" ga;r mh; duv nasqai to; n Qeo; n

meivzosi crhvsasqai timwrivai", tw' n metrivwn katefrov nei

mastivgwn. kai; o{ti tau'qæ ou{tw" e[ cei hJ iJstoriva didavskei:

prw'ton me; n ga;r tw' n qeivwn ejkeiv nwn ajkouvsa" rJ hmavtwn,

ejxapovsteilon to;n laovn mou i{na moi latreuvswsin ejn th' / ej rhv mw/,b

uJpolabw; n e[ fh, tiv" ejsti Kuv rio" ; oujk eijsakouvsomai th' " fwnh' "

aujtou' :.......oujk oi\ da to;n Kuv rion kai; to;n ∆Israh;l oujk

ejxapostelw` .c e[peita dev, th'" rJavbdou metablhqeivsh" eij" o[ fin,

fhsi; n hJ qeiva grafhv, kai; kativscusen hJ kardiva Farawv, kai; oujk

eijshvkousen aujtw' n kaqavper ejlavlhsen aujtoi' " Kuv rio":d kai; eujqu;"


A –6 [ ], B, C, * = mss.

a. Ex .mmb. Mt .f.; Mk .–mmc. Mt .; Mk .; Lk .f.mmd. Acts .mme. Ex .

A –6 [ ], B, C, (inc.) = mss.

a. Ex .mmb. Ex .mmc. Ex .mmd. Ex .



Why did the Lord of the universe make Moses, his minister,

stammering and slow of speech?a

Because this showed forth God’s power all the more. Just as he

appointed fishermen,b tax collectors,c and cobblersd heralds of truth

and teachers of religion, so he confounded the Egyptian sages with a

weak voice and a slow tongue.e

How should we understand, “I shall harden Pharaoh’s heart”?1a

() It would have been an easy matter for God to destroy him

after his first act of disobedience. Instead, in his ineffable long-

suffering, God punished Pharaoh with but a moderate chastise-ment. Yet, this only made his heart obstinate. Thinking God could

not apply heavier punishments, he scorned the moderate scourge.

The sequence of events proves this. First, on hearing the divine

words, “Let my people go so that they may worship me in the

wilderness,”b he retorted, “Who is the Lord? I shall not heed his

voice. I do not know the Lord and will not let Israel go.”c Next, when

the rod was changed into a serpent, holy Scripture says, “The heart

of Pharaoh grew in strength, and he did not listen to them as the

Lord had said to them”;d and it continues, “The Lord said to Moses,

Question x

. Schulze (PG, vol. , col. , note ) complains of the length of this reply (satis prolixa quidem est quaestio ), but Theodoret wishes to examine the implica-tions for free will entailed by the scriptural statements deriving Pharaoh’s obdura-cy from divine causation. This is an important moral principle, especially for an

Antiochene; v. sec. of the “Introduction to Theodoret’ s Life and Works” and cf.J.N.D. Kelly, who attributes (Early Christian Doctrines, p. ) to the Antiochenes“an intensified emphasis on individualism.”



ejpavgei, ei\ pe de; Kuv rio" pro;" Mwu>sh' n, bebav rhtai hJ kardiva

Faraw; tou' mh; ejxapostei' lai to;n laovn.e

() ∆Amfovtera de; shmaiv nei to; th'" gnwvmh" aujqaivreton: kai;

to; kativscusen hJ kardiva Faraw; kai; to; bebav rhtai hJ kardivaFarawv. baruv netai me; n ga;r kardiva uJpo; ponhriva" kaqelkomev nh.

kai; tou'to safw'" hJma'" didavskei oJ makavrio" Dabivd: aiJ ajnomivai

mou, gavr fhsin, uJperh` ran th;n kefalhvn mou, wJsei; fortivon

baru; ej baruvnqhsan ejpæ ej mev.f kai; oJ Zakcariva" th; n aj nomivan

ejqeavsato, molivbdou tavlanton ej n tw' / stovmati fevrousan.g hJ dev

ge, ajponoiva/ crwmev nh, katiscuv ein levgetai wJ" aj nqistamev nh tw' /

despovth/ Qew' / kai; nika' n aujtou' neanieuomev nh th; n duv namin: hJga;r eujsebh;" uJpotavttetai kata; th; n profhtikh; n paraiv nesin,

th; n levgousan, uJpotavghqi tw' / Kurivw/ kai; iJkevteuson aujtovn.h hJ dev

ge aj ntivtupo" kai; oiJonei; liqiv nh sklhruv netai: o{qen oJ tw' n o{lwn

Qeo;" dia; tou' profhvtou ∆Iezekih;l peri; tw' n ijoudaivwn|| e[ fh, kai;

ejkspavsw th;n kardivan th;n liqivnhn ejx aujtw' n.i diav toi tou'to kai;

oJ makavrio" Mwu>sh'", th; n ejpinivkion a[ /dwn wj /dh; n peri; tou' Faraw;

kai; tw' n aijguptivwn, ei[rhke, katevdusan eij" buqo;n wJsei; livqo": j

kai; pavlin, e[dusan wJsei; movlibdo" ejn u{dati sfodrw' /.k ejpeidh; ga;r

ejbavrunan aujtw' n th; n kardivan, e[dusan wJsei; movlibdo": ejpeidh; de;

kai; ejsklhvrunan, katevdusan eij" buqo;n wJsei; livqo". o{ti de; hJ

aj ntitupiva th'" kardiva" kai; hJ sklhrovth" uJ fæ hJmw' n aujtw' n

giv netai mavrtu" oJ qei'o" ajpovstolo" levgwn, ajgnow' n o{ti to;

crhsto;n tou' Qeou' eij" metavnoiavn se a[gei; kata; de; th;n

sklhrovthtav sou kai; aj metanovhton kardivan qhsaurivzei" seautw' /

oj rgh;n ejn hJ mev ra/ oj rgh' ", kai; ajpokaluvyew", kai; dikaiokrisiva" tou' Qeou' , o}" ajpodwvsei eJkavstw/ kata; ta; e[ rga aujtou` .l

() Pro;" de; touvtoi" kajkei' no skophtevon, wJ" eij fuvsei

ponhro;" h\ n oJ Farawv, oujk a] n aujtou' th; n gnwvmhn ej nhvllaxe. nu' n

de; oJrw'men uJpo; me; n th'" paideiva" aujto; n malattovmenon, uJpo; de;

th'" makroqumiva" sklhrunovmenon: paideuovmeno" ga;r hj ntibovlei


||31

l. aujtw` n J.P. : eJautw` n , c 1, , Sir. Sch. : auJtw` n F.M.

e. Ex .mmf. Ps .mmg. Zec .mmh. Ps .mmi. Ezek .mm j. Ex .mmk. Ex .mml. Rom .–mm



‘Pharaoh’s heart has been weighed down so that he will not let the

people go.’”e

() Both expressions, “The heart of Pharaoh grew in strength”

and “Pharaoh’s heart has been weighed down,” point to his free will.First, hearts that are weighed down are pulled down by wickedness,

as the blessed David informs us in unequivocal terms: “My sins rose

above my head; they bore down upon me like a heavy load.” f And

Zechariah had a vision of Iniquity bearing a talent of lead in her

mouth.g Second, when the heart is in the grip of madness, it is said

to grow in strength, as it sets itself in opposition to the Lord God

and rebelliously seeks to prevail against him. While the devout heartsubjects itself according to the prophet’s exhortation, “Be subject to

the Lord, and implore him,”h the resistant is hardened like stone.

Hence, through the prophet Ezekiel, the God of the universe said of

the Jews, “I shall pluck out their heart of stone.”i For the same rea-

son, the blessed Moses, in his victory song about Pharaoh and the

Egyptians, declared, “They went down into the depths like a stone”; j

and again, “They sank like lead in churning water.”k Since their

hearts were weighed down,“they sank like lead,” and since they were

also hardened, “they went down into the depths like a stone.” Now,

the holy apostle offers confirmation that the resistance and hardness

of heart originate in ourselves when he says, “Are you unaware that

God’s kindness leads you to repentance? In your hardness and im-

penitence of heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day

of wrath and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who

will repay each according to his deeds.”l

() In addition, we should consider that if Pharaoh’s evil had

been rooted in his very constitution, he would not have changed his

mind. In fact, we see him softened by correction but hardened by

forbearance. When corrected, he appealed to the lawgiver and said,

Question



to; n nomoqevthn, proseuvxasqe peri; ej mou' m levgwn: kai; pavlin, oJ

Kuv rio" divkaio", ejgw; de; kai; oJ laov" mou ajsebei' ":n th'" de;

timwriva" pauomev nh", ejbaruv neto, kai; ejsklhruv neto, kai; toi'"

prostavgmasi toi'" qeivoi" aj ntevlege. kai; th'" me; n kunomuiva" ejpenecqeivsh", ej n Aijguvptw/ qu'sai prosevtaxe tw' / Qew' /.o tou'

qeiotavtou de; Mwu>sevw" eijrhkovto" mh; duv nasqai tou'to dra'sai

dia; tou;" aijguptivou": ta; ga;r uJpæ ejkeiv nwn, fhsiv, qeopoiouvmena

quvsomen, kai; kataleuvonte" hJma'" ajpoktenou'sin:p ejpevtreyen

eij" th; n e[rhmon ajpelqei' n kai; ta;" qusiva" ejpitelevsai.q ejpi;

touvtoi" tou' profhvtou proseuxamev nou kai; th; n kunovmuian

ajpofhv nanto" frou'don, ej bav rune, fhsiv,.......th;n kardivan aujtou' kai; ejpi; touvtou tou' kairou' kai; oujk hjqevlhsen ejxapostei' lai to;n

laovn.r tou'to kai; ejpi; tou' loimou' gegev nhtai tw' n kthnw' n: ei\de,

fhsiv, Faraw; o{ti oujk ejteleuvthsen ajpo; pavntwn tw' n kthnw' n

tw' n uiJw' n ∆Israh;l oujde; e{n, kai; ej baruvnqh hJ kardiva Farawv, kai;

oujk ejxapevsteile to;n laovn:s ej n touvtoi" a{pasi deivxa" to; th'"

gnwvmh" aujqaivreton. kai; didavxa" o{pw" aujtoi'" ejphnev cqh tw' n

fluktainw' n to; pavqo",t kai; o{ti toi'" farmavkoi" hJ novso"

ejpevskhye, kai; oujk hjduvnanto oiJ fav rmakoi sth' nai ejnantivon

Mwu>sh' dia; ta; e{lkh:u hj /scuv nonto ga;r kaqhlkwmev noi kai; sfivsin

aujtoi'" ejpamu' nai mh; dunavmenoi: ejphvgage, kai;

ejsklhv rune ....... Kuv rio" th;n kardivan Farawv, kai; oujk eijshvkousen

aujtw' n kaqa; sunevtaxen aujtoi' " Kuv rio".v kai; metæ ojlivga pro;"

aujto; n e[ fh to; n Farawv, e{neken touvtou diethrhvqh", i{na

ejndeivxwmai ejn soi; th;n ijscuvn mou, kai; o{pw" diaggelh' / to; o[nomav

mou ejn pavsh/ th' / gh` /.w kai; au\qi" metæ ojlivga kai; tau'ta e[ fh:ijdwvn ......., gavr fhsi, Faraw; o{ti pevpautai oJ uJetov", kai; hJ

cavlaza, kai; aiJ fwnaiv, kai; prosevqeto Faraw; tou' aJ martavnein:

kai; ej bav rune th;n kardivan aujtou' kai; tw' n qerapovntwn aujtou' , kai;

ejsklhruvnqh hJ kardiva Farawv, kai; oujk ejxapevsteile tou;" uiJou;"

∆Israh;l kaqavper ejlavlhse Kuv rio" tw' / Mwu>sh' /.x to; de; kaqavper


m. Ex .mmn. Ex .mmo. Ex .f.mmp. Ex .mmq. Ex .mmr. Ex .mms. Ex .mmt. Ex .–mmu. Ex .–mmv. Ex .mmw. Ex .mmx. Ex .f.mm



“Pray for me”;m and again, “The Lord is righteous, and I and my

people impious.”n But when the punishment ceased, he was weighed

down and hardened and resisted the commands of God. Then, when

the plague of dog flies was sent upon him, he ordered that sacrificesbe offered to God within Egypt.o When the divinely inspired Moses

replied that he could not offer these because of the Egyptians—“If

we sacrifice creatures they regard as gods, they will stone us to

death”p—he permitted them to withdraw into the desert and per-

form the sacrifices there.q Later, when, on these terms, the prophet

prayed and brought an end to the plague of dog flies, as Scripture

says, “he weighed down his heart this time as well and refused to letthe people go.”r This happened also in the pestilence of the cattle:

“Pharaoh saw that none of all the cattle of the children of Israel had

died, and the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the

people go.”s In all these cases he demonstrated his own freedom of

will. Then relating how the scourge of boils was brought upon them

and fell upon the sorcerers,t “and the sorcerers were unable to stand

before Moses because of their sores”u—ashamed as they were of

their ulcers and their inability to help themselves—Scripture adds,

“The Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he did not hearken to

them as the Lord had ordained for them.”v And shortly after, God

said to Pharaoh, “This is why you have been spared: for me to

demonstrate my power in you, and for my name to be proclaimed in

all the earth.”w Again, shortly after this, the text says, “Pharaoh saw

that the rain, hail, and thunder had stopped, and Pharaoh went fur-

ther in sinning; he weighed down his heart and that of his atten-dants. Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, and he did not let the children

of Israel go as the Lord had said to Moses.”x The clause “as the Lord

Question



ejlavlhse th; n provgnwsin tou' Qeou' dhloi' aj nti; tou': oujde; n

touvtwn hjgnov hsen oJ tw' n o{lwn Qeo;" ajllæ ejx ajrch'" proeivrhke.

() Tau'ta de; pav nta diexh'lqon dei'xai boulovmeno" wJ" ou[te fuvsew" h\ n oJ Faraw; ponhra'", ou[te oJ despovth" Qeo;" sklhra; n

aujtou' kai; aj ntivtupon th; n gnwvmhn eijrgavsato: oJ ga;r nu' n me; n

eij" tou'to rJ evpwn, nu' n de; eij" ejkei' no, deivknusi to; th'" gnwvmh"

aujqaivreton. i{ na de; kai; e[k tino" eijkov no" to; ajmfiballovmenon

dialuvsw: oJ h{lio" th' / th'" qevrmh" ej nergeiva/ to; n me; n khro; n

uJgraiv nei, to; n de; phlo; n xhraiv nei kai; to; n me; n malavttei, to; n de;

sklhruv nei. w{sper toiv nun ou |to" th' / ej nergeiva/ th' / mia' / ta; ej nantivapoiei', ou{tw th' / tou' Qeou' tw' n o{lwn makroqumiva/ |oiJ me; n

wj fevleian, oiJ de; blavbhn karpou' ntai: kai; oiJ me; n malavttontai,

oiJ de; sklhruv nontai.||

Tou'to kai; oJ Kuvrio" ej n toi'" iJ eroi'" eujaggelivoi" dedhvlwken:

eij" kri' ma, gavr fhsin, ejgw; eij" to;n kovsmon tou' ton h\ lqon, i{na

oiJ mh; blevponte" blevpwsi, kai; oiJ blevponte" tufloi; gevnwntai. y

tou'to de; ouj tou' despovtou dhloi' to; n skopov n: oujde; ga;r touvtou

cavrin ejlhvluqen, i{ na tuflou;" ajpofhv nh/ tou;" blevponta": ajlla;

to; gegenhmev non dedhvlwken. aujto;" me; n ga;r bouvletai pavnta"

ajnqrwvpou" .......swqh' nai kai; eij" ejpivgnwsin ajlhqeiva" ejlqei' n.z

ejpeidh; de; to; aujqaivreton e[ cei tw' n aj nqrwvpwn hJ fuvsi", oiJ

me; n pepisteukovte" th'" swthriva" ajphvlausan, oiJ de;

ajpisthvsante" provxenoi eJautoi'" th'" geev nnh" gegev nhntai.

ou{tw" oJ ∆Iouvda" blevpwn: ajpovstolo" ga;r h\ n: u{steron

ejtuflwvqh, oJ de; qespevsio" Pau'lo", tuflo;" w] n provteron,aj nevbleyen u{steron.aa ou{tw dia; th'" tou' swth'ro" ejpifaneiva"

ejtuflwvqhsan me; n tw' n ijoudaivwn oiJ plei'stoi, aj nevbleyan de; ta;

e[qnh. ouj mhv n, ejpeidhv tine" e[mellon ajpisthvsein, ej crh' n mh;

genevsqai th; n kata; savrka tou' swth'ro" hJmw' n oijkonomivan:

tou'to ga;r ajpestevrei th; n oijkoumev nhn th'" swthriva". ou{tw kai;

oJ qeiovtato" e[ fh Sumewv n, ijdou; ou |to" kei' tai eij" ptw' sin kai;


||31

|31

y. Jn .mmz. Tm .mmaa. Acts .mm



had said” reveals God’s foreknowledge. It amounts to saying that the

God of the universe had not been ignorant of any of this but had

foretold it from the outset.

() The purpose of my narrative recital has been to bring outthat Pharaoh was not constitutionally evil, and that it was not the

Lord God who caused his will to be hardened and resistant. His

moving first in this direction then in that highlights his freedom of

will. Let me clarify the issue with a simile. The sun with its heat

melts wax but dries mud: softening one and hardening the other.

As the same heat produces opposite effects, so from God’s loving-

kindness some reap benefit, others harm; some are softened, othershardened.

The Lord himself revealed this in the sacred Gospels: “I have

come into this world for judgment, so that those who do not may

see, and those who see may become blind.” y Now, this does not sug-

gest the Lord’s intention—he did not come with the purpose of

blinding those with sight—but reveals what actually happened.2 For

“it is his wish that everyone be saved and come to the knowledge of

the truth.”z But since human beings are naturally endowed with free

will, the believers enjoyed salvation while the unbelievers bore the

responsibility for bringing Hell upon themselves. Thus, Judas, who

had sight as an apostle, was later blinded, whereas Paul, the

divinely inspired, though originally blind, later opened his eyes.aa

With the coming of the Savior, most of the Jews were blinded, butthe gentiles opened their eyes. The fact that some would not believe

did not mean that the Incarnation of our Savior should not have

taken place. That would have deprived the world of salvation. Thus,

Simeon, the most holy, said, “Lo, this one is destined for the fall

Question

. One may debate the appositeness of the dominical saying, which itself quotes Is .. As R.E. Brown observes (p. ), “the line of distinction between

the result of Jesus’ ministry and its purpose is not drawn sharply because of theoversimplified outlook which attributes everything that happens to God’s pur-pose.” This, of course, is precisely Theodoret’s concern.



ajnavstasin pollw' n ejn tw' / ∆Israh;l kai; eij" shmei' on

ajntilegov menon.bb

Kajkei' no mev ntoi eijdev nai crhv, wJ" to; n parov nta bivon oJ tw' n

o{lwn Qeo;" stavdion toi'" aj nqrwvpoi" ajpev fhnen i{ næ, ej n touvtw/ajgwnizovmenoi, dhlwvswsi to; n oijkei'on skopov n. ej n dev ge tw' /

mevllonti, th; n dikaivan poiouvmeno" krivsin, tou;" me; n wJ"

nikhfovrou" ajgwnista;" stefanwvsei,cc tou;" de; kolavsei wJ" th'"

kakiva" ejrgavta" gegenhmev nou".dd ejpeidh; de; ouj c a{pante" tw' /

mevllonti pisteuvousi bivw/, mavla sofw'" oJ tw' n o{lwn Qeo;" kai;

kolavzei tina;" ej n tw' /de tw' / bivw/ ponhriva/ sunezhkovta" kai; au\

pavlin a[llou" aj nakhruvttei eujsebeiva" pefrontikovta" wJ"mavlista. touvtou cavrin oJ qei'o" ajpovstolo" tina;" me; n skeuvh

oj rgh' ", tina;" de; skeuvh ejlevou" wj novmasen,ee ejpeidh; diæ ejkeiv nwn

me; n dh'lo" giv netai kolavzwn ej ndivkw" oJ despovth" Qeov", dia; de;

touvtwn ejpimeleiva" pantodaph'" ajxiw' n kai; promhqeiva" tou;"

th'" ajreth'" ajqlhtav".

() “Idoi dæ a[ n ti" kai; tw' n swmavtwn tou;" ijatrou;" tomai'"

kai; kauth'rsi crwmev nou", kai; tou;" kekrummev nou" cumou;" kai;

caleph; n th; n novson ejrgazomev nou" aj namocleuvonta" kai;

ejxavgonta", kai; ta; lanqav nonta pavqh dh'la poiou' nta". ou{tw"

kai; oJ tw' n o{lwn Qeo;" tw' n logismw' n th; n ponhrivan tai'"

paideivai" gumnoi': tou'to ga;r kai; ej n tw' / Deuteronomivw/ pro;" to; n

∆Israh;l e[ fh: kai; mnhsqhvsh/ pa' san th;n oJdovn, h}n h[gagev se

Kuv rio" oJ Qeov" sou tessarakosto;n e[to" ejn th' / ej rhv mw/,

o{pw" .......kakwvsh/ se, kai; peiravsh/ se, kai; diagnwsqh' / ta; ejn th' /

kardiva/ sou: eij fulavxh/ ta;" ejntola;" aujtou' , h] ou[. kai; ejkavkwsevse kai; ejlimagcovnhsev se, kai; ta; eJxh'".ff

Kaqavper de; pavlin oiJ ijatroi; tou;" aj nhkevstw" diakeimev nou",

pollw' n parov ntwn, tevmnousin, oujk ejkeiv noi" tosou'ton

ejpikourou' nte": i[sasi ga;r aujtw' n th; n novson aj nivaton: ajlla;

tou;" foithta;" to; n th'" ijatreiva" didavskonte" trovpon, ou{tw


bb. Lk .mmcc. Cf. Cor .; Tm .f.mmdd. Lk .mmee. Rom .f.mmff. Dt .f.mm



and rise of many in Israel and for a sign that will be contradicted.”bb

Of course, we should also realize that the God of the universe

constituted the present life as a race for human beings so that eachmight reveal his goal in the course of the contest. In the future life

he will render righteous judgment and crown some as victorious

athletescc and punish others as workers of iniquity.dd Now, since

there are those who do not believe in the life to come, even in the

course of this present life, the God of the universe, in his great wis-

dom, punishes some for their wickedness and celebrates others for

their great devotion to religion. Thus, the holy apostle calls somepeople “vessels of wrath” and others “vessels of mercy,”3ee since, in

the case of the former, the Lord God is seen to punish justly and, in

the latter, to accord the athletes of virtue every sort of providential

care.

() We have all observed bodily surgeons using surgery and

cautery to draw up and let out the hidden humors that cause severe

illness and to bring to light concealed ailments. So the God of the

universe by his chastisements lays bare the wickedness of our

thoughts. In the book of Deuteronomy he declared to Israel, “You

shall remember all the way the Lord your God led you for forty years

in the wilderness so as to afflict and test you and discover what was

in your heart, whether you would keep his commandments or not.

He afflicted you and exposed you to hunger” and so on.ff

Indeed, as surgeons will conduct operations on the incurably ill

before a large audience, not so much to help the sick—for they know

that the illness is incurable—as to teach their pupils the doctor’s

craft, so too God inflicted every sort of punishment on Pharaoh as

Question

. In Rom .f. Paul cites Pharaoh to illustrate his thesis of the gratuity of di-vine mercy. Again, this is at odds with Theodoret’s argument; cf. R.C. Hill, “Theo-doret Wrestling with Romans.”



kai; to; n Farawv, wjmotavth/ kai; qhriwvdei crhsavmenon gnwvmh/,

tai'" pantodapai'" timwrivai" uJpevbalen oJ Qeov", pav nta" wJ"

ejpivpan didavskwn aj nqrwvpou" wJ" aujto;" ijquv nei th; n ktivsin: kai;

toi'" me; n ajdikoumev noi" ejpamuv nei dikaivw", kolavzei de; tou;"ajdikou' nta" ej n divkh/: tou'to ga;r kai; pro;" aujto; n e[ fh to; n

Farawv: e{neken touvtou diethrhvqh", i{na ejndeivxwmai ejn soi; th;n

ijscuvn mou, kai; o{pw" diaggelh' / to; o[nomav mou ejn pavsh/ th' / gh' /.gg

o{ti de; pav ntose dievdrame tw' n pepragmev nwn hJ mnhvmh marturei'

me; n ÔRaa;b hJ povrnh levgousa toi'" kataskovpoi" o{ti, oJ fovbo"

uJmw' n kai; oJ trovmo" uJmw' n ejpevpesen ejfæ hJ ma' ": hjkouvsamen ga; r

o{pw" katexhv rane Kuv rio" oJ Qeo;" uJ mw' n th;n ej ruqra;n qavlassan pro; proswvpou uJ mw' n:hh marturou'si de; kai; oiJ ajllov fuloi

povrrwqen th; n kibwto; n qeasavmenoi kai; bohvsante", oujai; hJ mi' n,

ajllovfuloi,.......ou |to" oJ Qeov", oJ patavxa" th;n Ai[gupton.ii

Dia; tiv de; sunecwvrhsen tau'ta paqei' n to; n lao; n oJ Qeov";

{Ina, mh; mov non tou;" aijguptivou", ajlla; kai; tou;" ejkeiv nwn

mishvswsi qeouv", wJ" toiau'ta paræ aujtw' n peponqovte", kai; i{ na

suntovmw" uJpakouvswsin, ejxelqei' n keleuovmenoi. eij gavr, kai;

touvtwn ou{tw gegenhmev nwn, aj nemimnhv /skonto th'" ej n Aijguvptw/

trufh'" kai; pollavki" ejpeiravqhsan aj nastrev yai, tiv" a] n aujtou;"

e[peise katalipei' n th; n Ai[gupton, mhde; n paræ aujtw' n

peponqovta" deinov n;


gg. Ex .mmhh. Jos .f.mmii. Sm .

A –6 [ ], B, C, = mss.



he pursued his cruel and savage will in order to teach people every-

where that it is he who governs creation, who justly assists the

wronged and takes righteous vengeance on those who do wrong. As

he said to Pharaoh, “This is why you have been spared: for me todemonstrate my power in you, and for my name to be proclaimed in

all the earth.”gg Evidence that a report of these events circulated

everywhere is provided by Rahab the prostitute, who told the spies,

“Fear of you and dread of you has fallen on us, for we have heard

how the Lord your God dried up the Red Sea before you.” hh The

Philistines also confirmed this, when, upon seeing the ark from afar,

they cried out, “Woe is us, Philistines, this is the God who smoteEgypt.”ii

Why did God allow the people to endure these sufferings?

So they would hate the Egyptians and their gods for inflicting

such sufferings upon them, and so they would not delay in obeying

the command to leave. After all, if even despite their sufferings, they

remembered the luxury of Egypt and often tried to turn back, who

could have convinced them to leave if they had endured no harsh

treatment from the Egyptians?

Question



Dia; tiv hjboulhvqh oJ a[ggelo" aj nelei' n to; n Mwu>sh' n;a

JH gunh; me; n ejtovpase dia; to; qavteron tw' n paidivwn mh;

peritmhqh' nai kata; to; n tw' n eJbraivwn novmon: parautivka gou' n

aujtw' / th; n peritomh; n prosenhv noce: tine;" dev fasin, ejpeidhv,

pemfqei;" ejpæ ejleuqeriva/ tw' n oJmofuvlwn, koinwno; n ei\ ce th'" oJdou'

th; n oJmovzuga. ou}" ej crh' n sunidei' n o{ti, pei'sai to; n khdesth; n

boulovmeno" wJ" ouj katafronhvsei th'" gunaiko;" oujde; eJtevran

aujth'" protimhvsei, labei' n aujth; n hj nagkavsqh, ajllæ oujkatafronhtikw'" diakonw' n tw' / qeivw/ prostavgmati. aujtivka gou' n

labw; n th; n aj formh; n tou' ajggevlou, th; n gunai'ka pro;" tou;"

oijkeivou" aj nastrev yai prosevtaxe. kai; o{ti tou'tov ejstin ajlhqe;" hJ

iJstoriva didavskei. meta; ga;r th; n e[xodon, th; n ejx Aijguvptou,

diabav ntwn aujtw' n th; n qavlattan kai; eij" to; Siv naion

paragenomev nwn o[ro", aj fivketo su; n th' / gunaiki; pro;" aujto; n oJ

khdesthv". levgei de; ou{tw" hJ iJstoriva: e[labe de; ∆Ioqw; r oJgambro;" Mwu>sh' Sepfwv ran th;n gunai' ka Mwu>sh' meta; th;n

a[fesin aujth' " kai; tou;" duvo uiJou;" aujtou' .......kai; h\ lqe .......pro;"

Mwu>sh' n eij" th;n e[ rhmon.b

Toigavrtoi a[llo ti kataskeuavzwn, oJ a[ggelo" e[deixe th; n

rJomfaivan gumnhv n. ejpeidh; ga;r oJ mevga" Mwu>sh'" ejdediv ei to; n

Faraw; kai; pollavki" tou'to to; devo" ejdhvlwse, nu' n me; n levgwn,

tiv" eij mi ejgw; o{ti poreuvsomai pro;" Faraw; basileva Aijguvptou ; c

nu' n dev, proceiv risai a[llon dunav menon o}n ejxapostelei' ":d kai;

pavlin, ijscnovfwno" kai; braduvglwsso" ejgwv eij mi,e ajpeilei' aujtw' /

timwrivan oJ a[ggelo", fovbw/ fovbon ejxelauv nwn, tw' / meivzoni to; n

ejlavttona, mononouci; levgwn dia; th'" gegumnwmev nh" rJomfaiva",

eij to; n Faraw; devdoika", ma'llon dei'son ejmev, to; n kai; ajoravtw"

soi th; n plhgh; n ejpenegkei' n dunavmenon.


A –6 [ ], B, C, = mss.

a. Ex .mmb. Ex .–mmc. Ex .mmd. Ex .mme. Ex .



Why did the angel want to kill Moses?a

His wife supposed it was because one of their two sons had not

been circumcised according to the law of the Hebrews, for she cir-

cumcised him then and there. But some commentators have claimed

that it was because Moses, who was sent on the mission of liberating

his kinsmen, had his wife accompany him on the way. But they

should have seen that, in his wish to convince his father-in-law that

he would not despise his wife or prefer someone else to her, he wasobliged to take her along and that this was no indication of con-

tempt for the divine command. In any case, he immediately took oc-

casion from the angel’s visit to order his wife to return to her own

people. The truth of this inference is proven by subsequent events.

After the exodus from Egypt, when they had crossed the Red Sea and

reached Mount Sinai, his father-in-law came to him with his wife.

The sacred history reads as follows: “Moses’ father-in-law Jethrobrought Moses’ wife Zipporah after her dismissal and his two sons

and came to Moses in the wilderness.”1b

The angel had a further purpose in unsheathing his sword. The

great Moses was afraid of Pharaoh and often betrayed that fear as

when he asked, “Who am I to go to Pharaoh king of Egypt?”c and

when he said, “Appoint someone competent whom you will send”;

d

and again, “I have a weak voice and a slow tongue.”e So by threaten-

ing him with punishment, the angel drove out one fear with anoth-

er, the lesser with the greater. Baring his sword, he seemed to say, “If

you are afraid of Pharaoh, you should fear me all the more, because

I can strike you even when you cannot see me.”

Question

. As R.J. Clifford suggests, Ex .– may derive from “an old story of a night

demon fooled by the blood from someone other than the intended victim.” In theMT, it is the Lord himself who attacks Moses, and Zipporah saves her husband by anointing his penis—euphemistically referred to as “his feet”—with the blood of



Tiv ejsti to; o[nomav mou Kuv rio" oujk ejdhvlwsa aujtoi' " ;a

Didavskei povsh" aujto; n kai; timh'" kai; eujmeneiva" hjxivwsen: o}

ga;r toi'" patriavrcai" oujk ejdhvlwsen o[ noma, tou'to aujtw' / dh'lon

ejpoiv hsen: e[ fh ga;r pro;" aujtov n, ejgwv eij mi oJ w[n.b tou'to de; paræ

eJbraivoi" a[ fraston oj nomavzetai: ajpeivrhtai ga;r aujtoi'" tou'to

dia; th'" glwvtth" profevrein. grav fetai de; dia; tw' n tessavrwn

stoiceivwn: dio; kai; tetravgrammon aujto; levgousi. tou'to kai; tw' /petavlw/ ejpegevgrapto tw' / crusw' /, o} tw' / metwvpw/ tou' ajrcierevw"

ejpetivqeto, th' / tainiva/ th'" kefalh'" prosdesmouvmenon.c kalou'si

de; aujto; samarei'tai me; n ∆Iabev, ijoudai'oi de; ∆Iav.

Tiv dhv pote th'" tou' ∆Aarw; n gunaikov", ouj to; n patevra mov non,

ajlla; kai; to; n ajdelfo; n dh'lon hJmi' n pepoiv hken;a

Th'" basilikh'" kai; th'" iJ eratikh'" fulh'" th; n ejpimixivan

didavskei: oJ ga;r Naassw' n uiJo;" tou' ∆Aminadavb, oJ de; ∆Aminada;b

tou' ∆Aravm, oJ de; ∆Ara;m tou' ∆Esrwv n, oJ de; ∆Esrw; n tou' Farev", oJ

de; Fare;" tou' ∆Iouvda.b aujto;" de; oJ Naassw' n fuvlarco" h\ n tou'

∆Iouvda:c ejk th'" touvtwn suggeneiva" oJ Kuvrio" kata; savrka

gegev nnhtai. ouj mavthn toiv nun th'" basilikh'" kai; th'" iJ eratikh'"

fulh'" th; n ejpimixivan ejdivdaxen, ajlla; deiknu;" wJ" oJ despovth"

Cristo;" ejx ajmfotevrwn ejblavsthsen, oJ basileu;" kai; iJ ereu;"

kata; to; aj nqrwvpinon crhmativsa".


A –6 [ ], B, C, * = mss.

a. Ex .mmb. Ex .mmc. Ex .–

A –6 [ ], B, C, = mss.

a. Ex .mmb. Ru .–mmc. Nm .



What is the meaning of “My name ‘Lord’ I did not make known

to them”?a

This conveys the great honor and kindness with which God treat-

ed Moses. Declaring, “I am who am,”b he disclosed to Moses the

name he had never revealed to the patriarchs. Among the Hebrews

this is known as the unspoken name; they are forbidden to utter it

aloud. It is written in four consonants, and so they speak of it as the

“Tetragrammaton.” This name was also inscribed on a plate of goldworn on the forehead of the high priest and bound to his head with a

fillet.c The Samaritans call it “Iabe,” the Jews “Ia.”

Why are we told the name of not only the father, but also the

brother, of Aaron’s wife?a

This informs us of the intermarriage of the royal and priestly

tribes: Nahshon was the son of Amminadab, Amminadab of Ram,

Ram of Hezron, Hezron of Perez, and Perez of Judah.b Thus, this

Nahshon was the head of the family of Judah.c It was from their clan

that the Lord drew his bodily descent. So there was good reason topoint out the intermarriage of the royal and the priestly tribes; he

wanted to bring out that Christ the Lord, styled king and priest ac-

cording to his humanity, was descended from both.1

Question

their son’s foreskin. In the LXX, the Lord is replaced by an angel, and the story concentrates on the circumcision of Moses’ son.

. Theodoret here combines information drawn from Ex . and Ru .–.

The first informs us that Elisheba, the wife of Aaron, the original high priest, wasdaughter of Amminadab and sister of Nahshon; the second traces the line fromPerez to David.



Pw'" ejgev neto tou' ∆Aarw; n qeo;" oJ Mwu>sh'";a

{Wsper oJ Qeo;" prosevtatte tw' / Mwu>sh' /, ou{tw" pavlin oJ

Mwu>sh'" tw' / ∆Aarwv n: dio; dh; kai; profhvth" oJ ∆Aarw; n

proshgoreuvqh tou' Mwu>sevw".

Tiv dhv pote sunecwvrhsen oJ Qeo;" toi'" farmavkoi" taujta;

dra'sai tw' / Mwu>sh' /;

Eijsiv tine" kai; nu' n tw' n dussebeiva/ suzwv ntwn, oi{ fasi

gohteiva/ teqaumatourghkev nai to; n qespevsion Mwu>sh' n. touvtou

cavrin ej ndevdwke oJ Qeo;" toi'" farmavkoi" e[ nia dra'sai, i{ na

deicqh' / to; diav foron: metevbalon me; n ga;r aujtoi; ta;" rJavbdou" eij"

o[ fei", ajllæ hJ Mwu>sevw" rJavbdo" ta;" ejkeiv nwn katevpien:a

kai;metevbalon eij" ai |ma to; u{dwr kajkei' noib ajllæ eij" th; n protevran

ejpanagagei' n to; u{dwr oujk i[scusan fuvsin: kai; tou;" batrav cou"

ejxhvgagon:c ouj mh; n kai; ajpallavxai aujtw' n ta;" tw' n aijguptivwn

hjdunhvqhsan oijkiva".

Kai; eij" me; n to; paideuv ein tou;" aijguptivou" kai; toi'"

farmavkoi" ej nergei' n ej nedivdou, eij" de; to; pauv ein th; n timwrivan

oujkevti. ejpeidh; gavr, uJpo; tou' Qeou' kolazovmeno", tw' n aijguptivwn

oJ basileu;" oujk hjrkei'to tai'" qehlavtoi" plhgai'" ajlla; kai; toi'"

farmavkoi" au[xein th; n timwrivan ejkevleusen, kai; dia; touvtwn


A –6 [ ], B, C, = mss.

l. ∆Aarw; n Sir. Sch. F.M. : Faraw; c, , B, C, = “In what sense did Moses become God to Pharaoh?”

a. Ex .

A –6 [ ], B, C, = mss.

a. Ex .f.mmb. Ex .mmc. Ex .m



In what sense did Moses become God to Aaron?1a

God gave orders to Moses, and Moses to Aaron. Hence, Aaron

was even called Moses’ “prophet.”

Why did God permit the sorcerers to work the same miracles as

Moses?

Even today, there are pagans who claim that Moses, the divinely

inspired, performed miracles by magic. But God allowed the sorcer-

ers to work some miracles, precisely so that he might demonstrate

the difference. While they also changed their rods into serpents,

Moses’ rod swallowed theirs.a

While they also changed the waterinto blood,b they were unable to restore it to its original state. They

brought forth the frogsc but could not rid the Egyptians’ houses of

them.

Furthermore, in order to chastise the Egyptians, he allowed the

sorcerers to perform wonders but not to stop the punishment. Since

the king of the Egyptians, when punished by God, was not contentwith the plagues sent from heaven but ordered his sorcerers to in-

crease the punishment, God punished him through their actions as

Question

. Ex . speaks rather of Moses having been God to Pharaoh and of Aaron asMoses’ prophet. In fact, the majority of the manuscripts of the Quaest. in oct.

read “Pharaoh” for “Aaron”; v. the critical note. As Schulze points out (note ,col. ), Theodoret himself certainly reads the correct “Pharaoh” in his commen-tary on Ps. .f. (LXX) = .f. (MT).



aujto; n ejkovlazen oJ Qeov", mononouci; levgwn, ejpeidh; tevrph/

kolazovmeno", kai; dia; tw' n ejmw' n qerapov ntwn paideuvw kai; dia;

tw' n sw' n se kolavzw.

jIdw; n de; aujto; n plevon sklhrunovmenon,d ejkwvluse th; n ejkeiv nwn ej nevrgeian, kai; oiJ to; mei'zon zw' /on ejxagagov nte", to; n bavtracon,

to; n skni'pa to; n smikrovtaton ejxagagei' n oujk i[scusane ajlla;

davktulon Qeou' th; n plhgh; n proshgovreusan.f ta;" mev ntoi

fluktaiv na" kai; toi'" ejkeiv nwn ejphv negke swvmasing i{ na kai; aujtoi;

mavqwsi kai; oJ aj nov hto" aujtw' n basileu;" wJ", ouj mov non ejpev cein

ouj duv nantai ta;" qehlavtou" plhgav", ajlla; kai; aujtoi;

suntimwrou' ntai toi'" a[lloi". aj naideiva" toiv nun to; levgeinmagganeiva/ tini; teqaumatourghkev nai to; n Mwu>sh' n, tw' n mavgwn

bowv ntwn o{ti qeiva" h\ n dunavmew" ta; shmei'a. eij ga;r fantasiva

h\ n to; paræ aujtou' drwvmenon, e[dei kajkeiv nou" fantavsai kai; to; n

oJmovtecnon dielevgxai. nu' n de; diarrhvdhn bow'si, davktulo" Qeou'

ejsti tou' to.h

Tiv dhv pote prwvthn aujtoi'" th; n tou' u{dato" ejpavgei plhghv n;a

Prw'ton ejpeidh; mevga ej frov noun ejpi; tw' / potamw' / kai; qeo; n

tou'ton ej novmizon, th; n tw' n nefw' n aujtoi'" parev conta creivan.

e[peita kai; dia; ta; brev fh tw' n ijoudaivwn, ta; touvtw/

parapemfqev nta:b metablhqei;" ga;r eij" ai |ma, th'" gegenhmev nh"

kathgorei' paidoktoniva". touvtou cavrin kai; tou;" batrav cou"aj nevbluse ta; u{datac aj nti; tw' n ej n ejkeiv noi" ajpopnigev ntwn

aj nadoqev nta" paidivwn: mimei'tai gavr pw" ta; brev fh tou;"

batrav cou" badivzonta. mhdevpw ga;r toi'" posi; mov noi"

kecrh'sqai dunavmena, tai'" cersi; n ejpamuv nei th' / tw' n podw' n


d. Ex .mme. Ex .mmf. Ex .mmg. Ex .mmh. Ex .

A –6 [ ], B, c, , = mss.

a. Ex .f.mmb. Ex .mmc. Ex .mm



well. It was as if he said, “Since you enjoy being punished, I chastise

you through my attendants and punish you through your own.”

But when God saw that Pharaoh was hardened all the more,d hecalled a halt to their activity, and those who had brought forth the

larger creature, the frog, were now unable to bring forth the small-

est, the gnat,e but called the plague “the finger of God.”f He also in-

flicted sores on their bodiesg to teach them and their foolish king

that they were unable to check the plagues sent from heaven and

were condemned to share the punishment with everyone else.

Therefore, only a shameless audacity could maintain that Mosesworked wonders by magical trickery when the magicians themselves

cried out that the signs were produced by divine power. If his deeds

had amounted to no more than an illusion, they would have created

the same illusion and unmasked their fellow practitioner. Instead,

they cried out, “This is the finger of God.”1h

Why did he strike them first with the plague of the water?a

First, because they gloried in the river and thought it a god, since

it made up for their lack of rainfall. Next, because of the Jews’ in-

fants who had been thrown into it,b for when it turned into blood, it

accused them of the crime of infanticide. For the same reason, the

waters gushed forth frogs in place of the children,c who had beendrowned in them. In their movements, infants to some extent re-

semble frogs, since, unable to rely solely on their feet, they use

their hands to aid the weakness of their feet. The land stank of the

Question

. Perhaps Theodoret devotes this long discussion to the competition betweenMoses and the Egyptian sorcerers to exploit a sensational story. Guinot, however,suggests (p. ) that Theodoret may be implicitly warning his flock against mag-

ic, either by defending Moses against pagan accusations of sorcery or by denyingthat Moses might supply an example for those who would wish to justify theirown interest in magic.



ajsqeneiva/. proswvzese de; ejk tw' n batrav cwn hJ gh',d ejpeidh;

proswvzesan kai; ejsavphsan tw' n aijguptivwn oiJ mwvlwpe" ejk th'"

pampovllh" ponhriva".e

Eij o{lon to; u{dwr eij" ai |ma meteblhvqh, pw'" ejpoiv hsan oiJ

ejpaoidoi; tw' n aijguptivwn tai'" farmakeivai" aujtw' n wJsauvtw";a

jEpevlazen aujtoi'" kai; hJ qavlatta, to; de; povtimon u{dwr eij"

ai |ma meteblhvqh mov non. hjduv nanto toiv nun metakomivsaiqalavttion u{dwr eij" ta; basivleia kai; metabalei' n eij" th; n tou'

ai{mato" croiav n, tou' Qeou' dhlonovti sugcwrou' nto" aujtoi'"

ej nergei' n diæ a}" eijrhvkamen aijtiva".

∆Epishmhv nasqai mev ntoi kai; tou'to dei', wJ" tou;" me; n

batrav cou" ejk tw' n uJdavtwn ejxhvgage,b tou;" de; skni'pa" ejk tou'

cwvmato",c th; n de; kunovmuian o{qen hjqevlhsend i{ na mavqwsin wJ"

rJav /dion tw' / Qew' /, kai; div ca gh'" kai; div ca uJdavtwn, paravgein a}

bouvletai. touvtou cavrin kai; prolevgei ta;" timwriva",e i{ na mh;

ajpo; taujtomavtou tau'ta sumbaiv nein topavswsin, ajlla; gnw'sin

qehlavtou" ei\ nai plhgav".

Tiv dhv pote, mevllwn ejpifevrein th; n cavlazan, parhgguv hsenaujtoi'" eij" tou;" oi[kou" ta; kthv nh sunagagei' n;a

Filav nqrwpo" w[ n, oJ despovth" ejlevw/ ta;" timwriva"


d. Ex .mme. Ps .

A –6 [ ], B, C, = mss.

a. Ex .mmb. Ex .mmc. Ex .mmd. Ex .mme. Ex. .; .–, –

A –6 [ ], B, C, = mss.

a. Ex .m



frogs,d because the Egyptians’ “welts stank and festered” from their

numerous iniquities.e

If all the water was changed into blood, how did the Egyptian wiz-

ards produce the same effect with their charms?a

They were near the sea, and only the fresh water had been

changed into blood. So, with God allowing them to act for the rea-sons already mentioned, they must have been able to bring seawater

into the palace and change it to the color of blood.

We should also point out that while he produced the frogs from

the waters,b and the gnats from the dust,c he produced the dog fly

from wherever he chose,d so the Egyptians might learn how easy it

was for God to bring forth whatever he wanted, even without land

or water. He also foretold each punishmente so they would not

imagine these things were happening of themselves but realize they

were plagues sent from heaven.

Why did he urge them to round up their cattle into their houseswhen he was about to send down the hail?a

As the Lord is benevolent, he tempered retribution with mercy,

Question



kerav nnusin. a[llw" te kai; h[ /dei tina;" ajxivou" feidou'": tou'to

ga;r kai; hJ qeiva didavskei grafhv: oJ fobouv meno", gavr fhsi, to;

rJh' ma Kurivou tw' n qerapovntwn Faraw; sunhvgage ta; kthvnh

aujtou' eij" tou;" oi[kou": o}" de; ouj prosevsce th' / dianoiva/ eij" to; rJh' ma Kurivou ajfh' ke ta; kthvnh ejn toi' " pedivoi".b

Th; n de; cavlazan kai; tou;" skhptou;" aujtoi'" ejpenhv noce,c

deiknu;" wJ" aujtov" ejsti tw' n stoiceivwn aJpav ntwn despovth".

ejpeidh; ga;r kai; aijguvptioi kai; e{llhne" ej novmizon tou;" me; n

oujranivou", tou;" de; ejpigeivou", tou;" de; uJpocqonivou" ei\ nai

qeouv", kai; tou;" me; n th'" gh'", tou;" de; th'" qalavtth"

despovzein, kai; tou;" me; n tw' n ojrevwn, tou;" de; tw' n pedivwn e[ ceinth; n ejxousivan: dio; kai; oiJ suvroi e[legon, Qeo;" oj revwn oJ Qeo;"

∆Israh;l kai; ouj Qeo;" koilavdwn:d aj nagkaivw" a[gan oJ tw' n o{lwn

Qeov", ouj mov non aujtou;" dia; tou' potamou' kai; th'" gh'", ajlla;

kai; dia; tou' aj evro" kai; th'" qalavtth" ejpaivdeuse kai; oujranovqen

aujtoi'" keraunou;" ejpafh'ke, didavskwn wJ" aujtov" ejsti tw' n o{lwn

poihth;" kai; despovth". tou'to ga;r kai; oJ makavrio" ei[rhke

Mwu>sh'" pro;" aujtov n: i{na gnw' /" o{ti tou' Kurivou hJ gh' , kai; suv,

kai; oiJ qeravpontev" sou.e

Dia; tiv ta; tw' n aijguptivwn aj nei'le prwtovtoka;a

jEpeidh; prwtovgonon o[ nta tou' Qeou' to; n ∆Israh;l a[gan

sklhrw'" ejkei' no" ejdoulagwvgei: tou'to ga;r kai; aujto;" ei[rhken oJdespovth" Qeov": uiJo;" prwtovgonov" mou ∆Israhvl:b mavla dikaivw"

ta; tw' n aijguptivwn prwtovtoka qanavtw/ parevpemyen.

jIstevon mev ntoi wJ" oJ prwtovgono" kai; ajdelfou;" e[ cei: oJ ga;r

prwtovgono" h] prwtovtoko" pollw' n ejsti prw'to". ginwskevtw


b. Ex .f.mmc. Ex .f.mmd. Kgs .mme. Ex .f.

A –6 [ ], B, C, = mss.

a. Ex .mmb. Ex .mm



especially since he knew that some people were deserving of com-

passion. Indeed, holy Scripture informs us that “Pharaoh’s atten-

dants who feared the word of the Lord rounded up their cattle into

their houses, but whoever paid no heed to the word of the Lord lefthis cattle in the fields.”b

He brought down on them hail and thunderboltsc to show that

he is the Lord of all the elements. Since both the Egyptians and the

Greeks divided their gods into those of heaven, earth, and the un-

derworld and believed that some had charge of the earth and others

of the sea, that some had power over the mountains and others over

the plains—hence, the Syrians said “The god of Israel is a god of themountains, not a god of the valleys”d—it was absolutely necessary

for the God of the universe to instruct them not only through the

river and the earth, but also the sky and the sea. He cast on them

thunderbolts from heaven to teach them that he is the Creator and

Lord of all things. This is precisely what the blessed Moses said to

Pharaoh: “So you may know that the earth, you, and your atten-

dants all belong to the Lord.”e

Why did he kill the firstborn of the Egyptians?a

Since Pharaoh was subjecting Israel, God’s firstborn, to such

harsh slavery—as you recall, the Lord God himself had said, “Israelis my firstborn son”b—God quite justly gave the firstborn of the

Egyptians over to death.

Of course, you should understand that the first in line has broth-

ers, as the first in line, or firstborn, is the first of many. So Israel

Question



toiv nun oJ ∆Israh;l wJ" prw'to" me; n tou' Qeou' lao;" ej crhmavtise,

pepisteukovta de; ta; e[qnh, ouj mov non th'" swthriva" tetuv chken,

ajlla; kai; tw' n prwtotokivwn ajphvlause: laov", gavr fhsi, laou'

uJperevxei, kai; oJ meivzwn douleuvsei tw' / ejlavssoni.c

Aijtiw' ntaiv tine" to; prostetacev nai to; n Qeo; n toi'" eJbraivoi"

aijth'sai tou;" aijguptivou" skeuv h crusa' kai; ajrgura' kai; ejsqh'ta

kai; skuleu'sai tou;" aijguptivou": ou{tw ga;r oJ Suvmmaco" to;skeuavsasqai hJrmhv neusen.a

Polu; n ej n Aijguvptw/ crov non uJpevmeinen oJ lao;" plinqourgw' n,

kai; teicopoiw' n, kai; povlei" oijkodomw' n. hjboulhvqh toiv nun misqo; n

aujtou;" tw' n pov nwn labei' n oJ despovth" Qeov": dio; dh; kai; tau'ta

dra'sai prosevtaxe. kai; mhdei;" a[dikon nomizevtw, tou' Faraw;

to; n lao; n hjdikhkovto", tou;" aijguptivou" to; n misqo; n

eijspracqh' nai: ejkoinwv noun ga;r kajkei' noi th'" ajdikiva",

mimouvmenoi th; n tou' basilevw" wjmovthta.

Dia; tiv feuvgousin ejpitelevsai prosevtaxe th; n tou' Pavsca

eJorthv n;a


c. Gn .

A –6 [ ], B, C, = mss.

l. skeuavsasqai Sir. Sch. F.M. : suskeuavsasqai = “Symmachus who rendered ‘plunder’ rather than ‘pack up’” : skuleuvsasqai = “Symmachus who rendered ‘plunder’ rather than ‘plunder’”

a. Ex .

A –6 [ ], B, C, = mss.

a. Ex .–mm



should recognize that it was styled God’s first people, but that the

gentiles not only gained salvation through faith but also succeeded

to the rights of the firstborn. As Scripture says, “A people will sur-

pass a people, and the elder will serve the younger.”c

There are those who find fault with God’s command that the He-

brews ask the Egyptians for gold and silver vessels and clothing and

plunder the Egyptians. That is the translation of Symmachus, whorendered “plunder” rather than “prepare.”1a

The people spent a long time in Egypt making bricks, erecting

walls, and building cities. Since the Lord God wanted them to receive

some recompense for their labors, he ordered them to do this. No

one should think it unfair that, though it was Pharaoh who wronged

the people, payment was required of the Egyptians. They had also

participated in this injustice by imitating the cruelty of their king.2

Why did he command them to celebrate the paschal feast as they

were fleeing from Egypt?a

Question

. According to Fernández Marcos and Sáenz-Badillos, Theodoret readskeuavsasqai (to prepare) in Ex .. If so, this would have been a corruption of suskeuavzw (to pack up), which appears in some manuscripts of the LXX at ., averse echoed by .; v. J.W. Wevers and U. Quast, ad loc . This latter verb, a form of which appears in two manuscripts of our text, was itself a false reading forskuleuvw (to despoil, to plunder). Though a form of skuleuvw does appear in onems. of the Quaest., it seems most likely that Theodoret, puzzled by the inappropri-ate skeuavsasqai, found the obviously meaningful skuleusai in the translation

of Symmachus; cf. the critical note.. The gnostics and Marcion had raised this objection against the justice of the

God of the Old Testament. Theodoret’s response follows those previously offered



() ∆Aeivmnhston hjboulhvqh fulacqh' nai th'" swthriva" th; n

mnhvmhn. diav toi tou'to kai; nomoqetw' n e[legen, eja; n ej rwthvsh/ se

oJ uiJov" sou ......., levgwn, tiv ejstin to; Pavsca; ej rei' " o{ti, ej n th' /

shvmeron hJmevra/ ejxhvgage tou;" patevra" hJmw' n Kuv rio" oJ Qeo;" ejkgh'" Aijguvptou kai; ejrruvsato ta; prwtovtoka hJmw' n hJ nivka oJ

ojloqreuvwn ejpavtaxe ta; prwtovtoka tw' n aijguptivwn.b touvtou

cavrin parakeleuv etai tauvthn ejpitelou' nta" th; n eJorth; n th'"

oJdoiporiva" perikei'sqai to; sch'ma: e[stwsan, gavr fhsin, aiJ

ojsfuve" uJ mw' n periezwsmevnai, kai; ta; uJpodhv mata uJ mw' n ejn toi' "

posi;n uJ mw' n, kai; aiJ bakthrivai uJ mw' n ejn tai' " cersi;n uJ mw' n, kai;

e[desqe aujto; meta; spoudh' ". Pavsca ejsti; Kurivou.c

To; de; Pavsca oJ me; n Fivlwn hJrmhv neuse diabathv ria,d oJ de;

∆Iwvshpo" uJperbasiva,e oJ de; Suvmmaco" uJperbavsei", oJ de;

Qeodotivwn fasev c, aujth; n th; n eJbraivan fwnh; n teqeikwv".

shmaiv nei de; to; o[ noma tw' n eJbraivwn prwtotovkwn th; n swthrivan:

parekeleuvsato ga;r devsmhn uJsswvpou labei' n kaiv, tw' / ai{mati

tou' quomev nou probavtou ejmbav yanta", tou;" staqmou;" ejpicrivsai

kai; th; n flia; n i{ næ, o{tan eijsevlqh/ oJ ojloqreuvwn patavxai ta;

prwtovtoka tw' n aijguptivwn, ijdw; n to; ai |ma, uJperbh' / tw' n eJbraivwn

ta;" oijkiva"—f oujk ejpeidh; toiouvtwn ejdei'to shmeivwn hJ ajswvmato"

fuvsi", ajllæ o{ti dia; tou' sumbovlou kajkeiv nou" e[dei maqei' n th; n

tou' Qeou' khdemonivan, kai; hJma'", tou;" to; n a[mwmon ajmno; n

quvonta", gnw' nai prodiagrafev nta to; n tuvpon.

() Keleuv ei toiv nun aujtoi'" labei' n, ouj mov non ejk tw' n probavtwn

a[rna" ej niausivou", ajlla; kai; ejk tw' n aijgw' n ejriv fou", ouj c i{ na

kata; taujto; n tou'ton kajkei' non quvswsin, ajllæ i{ na oJ me; n provbaton e[ cwn tou'to quvsh/, oJ de; spanivzwn probavtou to; n e[rifon.g

pareggua' / de; tou'to labei' n th' / dekavth/ tou' prwvtou mhnov",h i{ næ


b. Dt .–mmc. Ex .mmd. Ph., Spec. .mme. Ios., A.I. .mmf. Ex .f.mmg. Ex .mmh. Ex .mmm



() He wanted the memory of their salvation to be preserved for-

ever. Therefore, as he delivered the law, he commanded, “When your

son asks you, ‘What is the Pasch?’ you shall say, ‘On this day the Lord

God brought our fathers out of the land of Egypt and rescued ourfirstborn when the destroyer struck the firstborn of the Egyptians.’”b

This is why he commands those celebrating this feast to dress as if

they were going on a journey: “Have your loins girt, your sandals on

your feet, your staffs in your hands, and eat it in haste, for it is the

Lord’s Pasch.”c

Philo rendered the term “Pasch” as “offerings made at a border-

crossing,”d Josephus as “going beyond,”e Symmachus as “goings be-

yond,” while Theodotion, simply transliterated the Hebrew word as

“Phasech.” The term signifies the salvation of the Hebrews’ first-

born.1 God commanded them to take a bunch of hyssop, dip it in the

blood of a sheep that was being slaughtered, and smear the door-

posts and lintel, so that when the destroyer came to strike the first-

born of the Egyptians, he would see the blood and pass by the hous-

es of the Hebrews.f Not that an incorporeal being had need of signs.

Rather, through this symbol they were to learn of God’s providence,

and we, who offer in sacrifice the blameless lamb, were to learn the

type in which he is foreshadowed.

() Now, he commanded them to take not only yearling lambs

from the sheep but also kids from the goats—not that they were to

slaughter both together. Rather, those who had a sheep were toslaughter a sheep and those who had no sheep were to slaughter a

kid.g He commanded them to take the animal on the tenth day of

the first monthh so as to have it ready before the feast and to slaugh-

Question

by Irenaeus (Haer. ..f.), Clement of Alexandria (Str. ...–), Tertullian(Marc. ..–), and Chrysostom (Iud. .). All these Christian exegetes follow aline of apologetic laid out by Philo (De uita Mosis ..); v. Guinot, p. and

R. Braun, pp. –.

. To explain the significance of the Passover for Jews and Christians, Theodo-



eujtrepivsh/ pro; th'" eJorth'", th' / de; tessareskaidekavth/ pro;"

eJspevran tuqh' nai:i kata; tauvthn ga;r th; n eJspevran kai; oJ

despovth" Cristo;" paredovqh toi'" ijoudaivoi". j meta; pikrivdwn de;

aujto; brwqh' nai prosevtaxen eij" aj navmnhsin th'" ej n Aijguvptw/pikrotavth" zwh'" kai; th'" calepwtavth" douleiva".k dia; de; tw' n

ajzuvmwn ejmfaiv nei, ouj mov non th'" oJdoiporiva" to; suv ntonon kai; to;

th'" trofh'" aujtoscevdion, ajlla; kai; o{ti proshvkei mhde; i[ cno"

th'" aijguptiakh'" ejpifevresqai politeiva": ou{tw ga;r kai; oJ

Kuvrio" ej n toi'" eujaggelivoi" hJrmhv neuse, prosev cete, levgwn, ajpo;

th' " zuv mh" tw' n grammatevwn kai; farisaivwn.l ejkevleuse de; kai;

tou;" ajrkou' nta" eij" ejdwdh; n probavtou kata; taujto; n qu'sai to;Pavsca, filadelfivan aujtou;" ejkpaideuvwn kai; to; n eij" tou;"

pev nhta" e[leon.m dia; tou'to parakeleuv etai kai; ta; peritteuvonta

tw' n krew' n katakaiv esqai kai; eij" th; n uJsteraivan mh;

fulavttesqai, tauvth/ katanagkavzwn aujtou;" kalei' n tou;"

deomev nou" eij" koinwnivan th'" eJorth'".n

Tau'ta de; pav nta tw' n hJmetevrwn ejsti; musthrivwn aij nivgmata:

crivomen ga;r kai; hJmei'" tw' / ai{mati tou' hJmetevrou ajmnou', ouj

mov non th; n fliav n, ajlla; kai; tou;" duvo staqmouv": kata; me; n to;

oJrwvmenon th; n glw'ttan kai; ta; ceivlh kaqaivrontev" te kai;

aJgiavzonte", kata; de; to; noouvmenon, aj nti; me; n flia'" to;

logikov n, aj nti; de; tw' n duvo staqmw' n to; qumoeide;" kai; to;

ejpiqumhtikov n.o

() ÔArmovttei de; hJmi' n kai; to; mhvte wjma; mhvte eJ yhmev na


i. Ex .mm j. Mt .; Mk .mmk. Ex .mml. Mt .mmm. Ex .mmn. Ex .mmo. Cf. Pl., Rep. c-b.mm



ter it on the fourteenth day towards evening,i as that was the evening

on which Christ the Lord was handed over to the Jews.2j He bade it

be eaten with bitter herbs in memory of their bitter life and harsh

slavery in Egypt.k By the unleavened bread he indicated not only thehaste of their departure and their rough and ready fare but also that

they were not to take away with them even a trace of Egyptian ways.

In the Gospels, the Lord himself interpreted this command when he

said, “Be on guard against the leaven of the scribes and Pharisees.”3l

He also enjoined that a number sufficient for consumption of a

sheep slaughter the paschal victim together, the intention being to

teach them brotherly love and pity for the poor.m

For the same rea-son he commanded that any leftover meat be burned, not kept for

the day after, thus obliging them to invite the needy to share the

feast.n

Now, all these requirements are obscure types of our Eucharist.

We also anoint with the blood of our lamb, not only the lintel but

also the two posts. At the visible level, we purify and sanctify our

tongue and lips, and at the spiritual level, the rational faculty, repre-

sented by the lintel, and the principle of high spirit and the appeti-

tive faculty,o represented by the two posts.

() The requirement to eat it, not raw or boiled, but roasted in

Question

ret tries to uncover the etymology of the Hebrew word Pesach by referring to arange of Jewish authorities, who, as he discovers, differ considerably. He does notseem aware of the popular and unscientific Hebrew etymology deriving the namefrom the verb psh “to jump” or “pass by,” which appears in Ex ., , , where itis said that the Lord “passes over” the houses of the Hebrews on the night when heslays the firstborn of the Egyptians. For a brief discussion of modern attempts toderive the name from Akkadian and Egyptian stems, v. J.J. Castelot and A. Cody,“Religious Institutions of Israel,” sec. ..

. In the synoptic Gospels, the Last Supper occurs on Passover. In the Gospel of

John, however, the death of “the lamb of God” occurs on Passover, the Supper onthe evening before (.); v. D.J. Harrington, “Mark,” on .–.. Theodoret offers a version of this dominical saying, which differs from both



ejsqiv ein ajlla; ojpta; puriv:p ou[te ga;r mov nw/ tw' / gravmmati

prosblevpomen ajlla; th; n diav noian ejreunw'men. ou[te mh; n

aj nqrwpiv nou" logismou;" toi'" qeivoi" ejpeisavgomen logivoi":

tou'to ga;r kai; ∆Hsaiv >a" tinw' n kathgovrhsen, wJ" aj namignuv ntwn u{dati to; n oi\ non:q ajlla; mov nw/ crwvmeqa tw' / qeivw/ puriv, th' / tou'

aJgivou pneuvmato" cavriti. to; de; mh; katalipei' n tw' n krew' n eij"

th; n uJsteraivan ou{tw noou'men, o{ti oJ mevllwn bivo" tw' n sumbovlwn

ouj dei'tai: aujta; ga;r oJrw'men ej n ejkeiv nw/ ta; pravgmata. ta; de;

ojsta' tou' probavtou suntrivbousin oiJ kakw'" ta; qei'a noou' nte"

lovgiar kai; eij" th; n oijkeivan aujta; peirwvmenoi metafevrein

ajsevbeian.To; dev, mh; mov non ejk probavtwn, ajlla; kai; ejx ejriv fwn

lambav nein th; n qeivan pavlin khruvttei filanqrwpivan: ouj ga;r

mov non uJpe;r dikaivwn, ajlla; kai; uJpe;r aJmartwlw' n, oJ despovth"

Cristo;" to; swthvrion uJpomemev nhke pavqo".s ou{tw de; noei' n

aujto;" hJma'" ejxepaivdeusen: ajmnoi'" me; n ga;r to; n tw' n aJgivwn

ajpeivkase suvllogon, to; n de; tw' n ouj toiouvtwn ejriv foi":t e[rifon

ga;r uJpe;r aJmartiva" oJ novmo" prosfevrein ejkevleuse.u kai; tw' n

qeivwn de; musthrivwn oiJ metalambav nonte", oiJ me; n wJ" probavtou

metalambav nousin, a{te dh; teleivan th; n ajreth; n kekthmev noi, oiJ

de; wJ" ejriv fou, dia; metanoiva" ejxaleiv fonte" ta;" tw' n

aJmarthmavtwn khlida". ou{tw kai; oJ swth;r hJmw' n, oujk ejk sitiv nwn

mov non, ajlla; kai; ejk kriqiv nwn a[rtwn tou;" sunelhluqovta"

dievqreye.v

Kai; hJmi' n de; oJ despovth" ejkevleusen e[ cein ta;" ojsfuva"

periezwsmev na", kai; tou;" povda" uJpodedemev nou", kai; tou;"luv cnou" kaiomev nou" wJ" oijkevta" despovthn prosmev nonta".w ajllæ

eJbraioi me; n wJ" aijguptivwn ajpallattovmenoi kai; eij" th; n

cananaivan gh' n eijsagovmenoi tou'to ei\ con to; sch'ma, hJmei'" de

wJ" ej nteu'qen eij" e{teron meqistavmenoi bivon. dia; tou'to kai; hJmi' n

oJ qei'o" parakeleuv etai Pau'lo", bow' n, ejkkaqav rate th;n palaia;n

zuv mhn i{na h\ te nevon fuv rama kaqwv" ejste a[zumoi: kai; ejphvgage,


p. Ex .mmq. Is .mmr. Ex .mms. Cf. Lk ..mmt. Mt .mmu. V., e.g., Lv ., ; .; ., ; .–.mmv. Jn .mmw. Lk .f.mm



fire also applies to us.p After all, we do not limit our attention to the

bare letter of Scripture but also scrutinize the sense. Nor do we add

human arguments to the divine prophecies, for which Isaiah

blamed some people, as though “mixing wine with water.”q Instead,we apply only the divine fire, the grace of the Spirit. We understand

the requirement not to leave any meat for the next day in the sense

that the life to come has no need of symbols; there we shall see

things as they are. Those who break the bones of the sheep are those

who misinterpret the divine propheciesr in an attempt to accommo-

date them to their own heretical notions.

Furthermore, the requirement to choose a victim not only from

the sheep but also from the kids proclaims God’s loving-kindness.

Christ the Lord underwent his saving passion not only for the right-

eous but also for sinners, as he taught us to understand.s He com-

pared the company of saints to the lambs and that of sinners to the

kids,t since the Law ordained the offering of a kid for sin.u And those

who participate in the sacred Eucharist are of two classes: those who

may be said to partake of a lamb, since they possess perfect virtue,

and those who may be said to partake of a kid, since they wipe away

the stain of sin through repentance. Thus, our Savior nourished the

crowd with barley, as well as wheaten, loaves.v

The Lord also ordered us to have our loins girt, our feet shod,

and lamps lit, like servants awaiting their master.w This is how theHebrews were dressed when they were being freed from Egypt and

led into the land of Canaan, but we are traveling from this to the

other life. Hence, St. Paul cries out instructing us, “Clean out the old

leaven so you may be a new batch, as you really are unleavened”;

and he went on, “for Christ our paschal lamb has been sacrificed”;

and he added, “so that we may celebrate, not with old leaven nor

Question

those found in the NT: Mt ., which mentions the Pharisees and the Sadducees,and Lk ., which names only the former; cf. note to Q. on Ex.



kai; ga; r to; Pavsca hJ mw' n uJpe; r hJ mw' n ejtuvqh Cristov": kai;

prostevqeiken, w{ste eJortavzwmen, mh; ejn zuv mh/ palaia' / mhde; ejn

zuv mh/ kakiva" kai; ponhriva", ajllæ ejn ajzuv moi" eijlikrineiva" kai;

ajlhqeiva".x

() [Anwqen de; promemhv nuke th; n tw' n ejqnw' n swthrivan oJ tw' n

o{lwn Qeov": kai; ga;r tou;" proshluvtou" metalagcav nein tou'

Pavsca prosevtaxe. geiwv ran ga;r to; n proshvluton proshgovreuse

kai; ijsonomiva" aujtw' / metevdwken: e[stai, gavr fhsin, wJ" .......oJ

aujtov cqwn th' " gh' ". y kai; to; ejn oijkiva/ mia' / brwqhvsetaiz

fulavttousin oiJ pistoiv, ej n mov nh/ th' / tou' Qeou' ejkklhsiva/ tw' n

qeivwn metalambav nonte" musthrivwn, ta;" de; tw' n aiJretikw' nsunagwga;" bdeluttovmenoi.

Ta; mev ntoi prwtovtoka kai; tw' n bow' n kai; tw' n probavtwn

prosfevresqai nenomoqevthken oJ despovth" Qeov", th'" tw' n

prwtotovkwn aujtw' n swthriva" aj namimnhvskwn: oujde; ga;r aujto;"

tw' n qumavtwn ejdei'to ajlla; th; n ejkeiv nwn wj fevleian

ejpragmateuv eto: tou'to ga;r kai; aujto;" oJ novmo" dhloi':

eja;n .......ej rwthvsh/ se oJ uiJov" sou ......., levgwn, tiv ejsti tou' to; kai;

ej rei' " pro;" aujtovn o{ti, ejn ceiri; krataia' / ejxhvgagen hJ ma' " Kuv rio"

ejk gh' " Aijguvptou, ejx oi[kou douleiva". hJnivka de; ejsklhv rune

Faraw; ejxapostei' lai hJ ma' ", ajpevkteine Kuv rio" pa' n prwtovtokon

ejn gh' / Aijguvptw/ ajpo; prwtotovkou ajnqrwvpou e{w" prwtotovkwn

kthnw' n. dia; tou' to ejgw; quvw tw' / Kurivw/ pa' n dianoi' gon mhvtran,

ta; aj rsenikav, kai; pa' n prwtovtokon tw' n uiJw' n mou lutrwvsomai.

kai; e[stai eij" shmei' on ejpi; th' " ceirov" sou kai; ajsavleuton pro;

ojfqalmw' n sou: ejn ga; r ceiri; krataia' / ejxhvgagev se Kuv rio" ejx Aijguvptou.aa toigavrtoi touvtwn e{kaston, ouj th'" tou' Qeou'

creiva" e{ neken, ajlla; th'" tou' laou' ejgiv neto wj feleiva".


x. Cor .f.mm y. Ex .mmz. Ex .mmaa. Ex .–



with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened

bread of sincerity and truth.”x

() Long ago, the God of the universe foretold the salvation of the

nations, when he directed that proselytes participate in the Pasch.

He designated the proselyte by the name “sojourner” and gave him

equality of rights: “He will be like one born in the land.” y As to the

requirement, “It will be eaten in one house,”z this is observed by the

faithful, who partake of the sacred Eucharist only in God’s Church

and abhor the assemblies of heretics.4

When the Lord God legislated for the offering of the firstborn of

oxen and sheep, he called to mind the salvation of the firstborn of

the Hebrews. In no need of sacrificial victims himself, he was work-

ing their salvation, as the Law itself indicates: “If your son asks you,

‘What does this mean?’ you shall say to him, ‘With a mighty hand

the Lord brought us out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of

slavery. When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the Lord

killed every firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of man to the

firstborn of cattle. Therefore, I sacrifice to the Lord every male that

opens the womb, but every firstborn of my sons I shall redeem. It

will serve as a sign on your hand and a lasting reminder before your

eyes, for with a mighty hand the Lord led you out of Egypt.’”aa In

conclusion, every facet of this rite was meant to serve, not any need

of God’s, but the salvation of his people.5

Question

. Theodoret has developed an elaborate parallel between the original Passoverand the liturgy of the Eucharist as a Passover meal; for him the former offers only “obscure figures” (aij nivgmata), the latter, the reality foreshadowed by the figures.

. Here Theodoret returns to the original point of the question, the reason for

the Passover celebration, which he has answered at the two levels of literal and alle-gorical exegesis. The question-answer genre allows him to address his own theo-logical and exegetical concerns.



Tinev" fasin eij" dwvdeka diairevsei" diaireqh' nai th; n

qavlattan kai; eJkavsthn fulh; n kaqæ eJauth; n diabh' nai kai; tou'to

nomivzousi to; n makavrion eijrhkev nai Dabivd: tw' / katadielovnti th;n

ej ruqra;n qavlassan eij" diairevsei".a

jEgw; de; dich' nomivzw tmhqh' nai to; pevlago": tou'to ga;r kai; hJ

qeiva didavskei grafhv: to; de; u{dwr aujtoi' " tei' co" ejk dexiw' n kai;

tei' co" ejx eujwnuv mwn:b th; n de; oJdo; n eujrei'an genevsqai,

suvmmetron tw' / plhvqei tw' n pariov ntwn: wJdhvghse, gavr fhsin,aujtou;" ejn aj buvssw/ wJ" ejn ej rhv mw/.c tou'to de; th'" oJdou' th; n

eujrucwrivan dhloi'. oujde; ejkei' no" mev ntoi oJ lovgo" tw' / th'"

eujsebeiva" lumaiv netai lovgw/: kai; tou'to ga;r kajkei' no th'" qeiva"

e[rgon qaumatourgiva". crh; mev ntoi ajkolouqei' n th' / th'" qeiva"

grafh'" ajlhqeiva/. th' / de; diæ u{dato" panwleqriva/ to; n Faraw;

panstratia' / paradevdwken oJ dikaiovtato" dikasthv", ejpeidhvper

diæ u{dato" aj nei'le tw' n eJbraivwn ta; brev fh.d

J Opoi'on h\ n to; xuvlon to; gluka' nan ej n th' / Merra' / to; u{dwr;a

Peritto; n kai; aj nov hton to; ta; sesighmev na zhtei' n. ajrkei' de;

hJmi' n maqei' n wJ" dia; tou' xuvlou to; pikro; n u{dwr eij" glukei'an

meteblhvqh poiovthta: kai; tou'to ga;r th; n hJmetevran prodhloi'


A –6 [ ], B, C, = mss.

a. Ps .mmb. Ex .mmc. Ps .mmd. Ex .; .

A –6 [ ], B, C, = mss.

a. Ex .–



Some commentators have claimed that the sea was divided into

twelve parts, and each tribe took its own path, and they believe that

this is the meaning of David’s: “[Give thanks to him] who divided

the Red Sea into parts.”a

My position is that the sea was divided in half. As holy Scripture

teaches us: “The water formed a wall to the right of them and a wall

to the left.”b And I believe the way was made wide enough to accom-

modate the vast number of people making the crossing. Indicatingthe breadth of the path, Scripture says, “He guided them in the deep,

as in the wilderness.”c The other explanation, however, does not un-

dermine orthodoxy; both the one and the other would be a divine

miracle. Nevertheless, we should adhere to the facts of holy Scrip-

ture.1 It was with perfect justice, that the judge consigned Pharaoh

and all his host to destruction by water, because Pharaoh had used

water to kill the babies of the Hebrews.d

What kind of wood sweetened the water of Marah?a

It is pointless and foolish to inquire into unspoken secrets. It is

sufficient for us to learn that, through the wood, the bitter quality of

the water was transformed into sweetness. This was an early revela-

Question

. In his commentary on Ps . (= . MT), where he had rejected the pos-sibility of multiple crossings as a “tale invented by Jews” ( jIoudai>koi~.......muvqoi~),Theodoret had based his understanding of the event, as here, on Ex .. ThatJewish tradition arose because of the plural form of the Hebrew noun “parts,”which Dahood (on Ps .) regards as a corruption of an original dual meaning“in half”; in support of this view, he cites the phrase “through the middle” in the

following verse. In his hom. in Ex. (.), Origen had treated this ancient tradition asworthy of consideration, and Chrysostom, who may have been Theodoret’ssource, endorsed it in sec. of his Exp. in Ps. .



swthrivan: to; ga;r swthvrion tou' staurou' xuvlon th; n pikra; n tw' n

ejqnw' n ejgluvkane qavlattan.

Pw'" nohtevon to; uJpo; tou' ajpostovlou eijrhmev non: pavnte" eij"

to;n Mwu>sh' n ej baptivsqhsan ejn th' / nefevlh/ kai; ejn th' /

qalavssh/.......kai; pavnte" to; aujto; pov ma pneumatiko;n e[pion:

e[pinon ga; r ejk pneumatikh' " ajkolouqouvsh" pevtra". hJ de; pevtra

h\ n oJ Cristov" ;a

Tuvpo" h\ n tw' n nevwn ta; palaiav: kai; skia; me; n oJ novmo"

Mwu>sevw", sw'ma de; hJ cavri". ejpeidh; toiv nun ejdivwkon tou;"

eJbraivou" aijguvptioi, diabav nte" de; th; n ejruqra; n qavlattan, oiJ

eJbrai'oi th'" pikra'" tw' n aijguptivwn ajphllavghsan despoteiva",b

tuvpon e[ cei th'" kolumbhvqra" hJ qavlatta, hJ de; nefevlh tou'

pneuvmato",c oJ de; Mwu>sh'" tou' swth'ro" Cristou', tou' staurou'

de; hJ rJavbdo",d tou' diabovlou oJ Farawv, tw' n daimov nwn oiJ

aijguvptioi,e to; de; mav nna th'" qeiva" trofh'",f to; de; th'" pevtra"

u{dwr tou' swthrivou ai{mato".g w{sper ga;r ejkei' noi, meta; to;

diabh' nai th; n ejruqra; n qavlassan, kai; th'" xev nh" trofh'" kai;

tou' paradovxou ajphvlausan navmato", ou{tw" hJmei'", meta; to;

swthvrion bavptisma, tw' n qeivwn metalambav nomen musthrivwn.


A –6 [ ], B, C –52 , * = mss.

a. Cor ., mmb. Ex .mmc. Ex .f.mmd. Ex .mme. Ex .–mmf. Ex .f.mmg. Ex .



tion of our salvation, of the saving wood of the cross that sweetened

the bitter sea of the nations.1

How should we understand the apostle’s statement: “All were

baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; all drank the same

spiritual drink, for they drank from the spiritual rock that followed

them, and the rock was Christ”?a

The old was a type of the new, the Law of Moses a shadow, grace

the body. As the Egyptians pursued the Hebrews, and, by crossing

the Red Sea, the Hebrews were freed from the harsh domination of

the Egyptians,b the sea represents, in typological terms, the bap-

tismal font, the cloud the Spirit,c Moses Christ the Savior, the rod

the cross,d Pharaoh the devil, the Egyptians the demons,e the manna

the divine nourishment,f and the water from the rock the saving

blood.g After the crossing of the Red Sea, the ancients enjoyed the

novel food and miraculous spring; just so, after saving baptism, we

partake of the sacred Eucharist.1

Question

. In a commentary of Ex .–, the reader might hope to find an expositionof the name “Marah” (= “bitter” in Hebrew) or a discussion of the murmuring of the people. Instead Theodoret focuses only on the wood, for which he offers an al-legorical interpretation. Again, his exegetical choice is governed by his christology.

. In Cor .–, Paul provides Theodoret with justification for seeing in the

OT types of NT, especially sacramental, realities. Neither in his commentary onPaul nor in the Quaest. in oct. does Theodoret discuss the later Jewish notion of themoving, rock-shaped well, for which v. E.E. Ellis, “A Note,” pp. –.



Dia; tiv hJ pevtra Cristo;" wj nomavsqh;a

ÔW" tuvpo" genomev nh tou' despovtou Cristou'. ou{tw kai; hJ

qavlatta bavptisma proshgoreuvqh kaivtoi oujdeno;" ej n aujth' /

baptisqev nto": kekoniamev no" ga;r ma'llon aujth; n h] diavbroco"

dih'lqen oJ ∆Israhvl.

Dia; tiv a[ rton ajggevlwn to; mav nna proshgovreusen|| oJ

profhvth" Dabivd;a

JW" ajggevlwn th' / touvtou dwrea' / diakekonhkovtwn: hJ ga;r

ajswvmato" fuvsi" ouj dei'tai trofh'". ou{tw" a[ rto" ouj ranou'

proshgoreuvqh, | ejpeidh; a[ nwqen kathnev cqh, oujk ejx aujtou' tou'

oujranou', ajllæ ejk tou' aj evro". ou{tw kai; peteina; ouj ranou' proshgovreutai ta; to; n aj evra diaperw' nta.

Dia; tiv mavnna ejklhvqh;a

Eujqu;" aujto; qeasavmenoi, ajllhvlou" hjrwvtwn, tiv tou' to;

ejpevqesan toiv nun aujtw' / proshgorivan tiv tou' to: tou'to ga;r


||37

|37

A –6 [ ], B, C, = mss.

a. Cor .

A –6 [ ], B, C, (inc.) = mss.

a. Ps .

A –6 [ ], B, C, = mss.

a. Ex .mm



Why was the rock called “Christ”?a

Because it proved a type of Christ the Lord. Likewise, the sea was

given the name “baptism,” though no one was baptized in it, for in

the crossing, Israel was covered in dust, not water.1

Why did the prophet David call the manna “the bread of an-

gels”?a

Because the gift of manna was conferred through the ministry of

angels. Incorporeal beings, of course, have no need of food. Like-

wise, it was called “the bread of heaven,”1 since it was brought down

from on high—not from heaven itself but from the sky. Similarly,the creatures that fly across the sky are called “birds of heaven.”

Why was it called “manna”?a

As soon as they saw it, they asked each other, “What is it?” So they

named it “What is it?” the meaning of manna . As we learn from sa-

Question

. Theodoret combines a typological approach with a literalistic reading of thetext.

. Surprisingly, Theodoret’s replies to this and the next question contain no ref-erence to the Eucharist.



eJrmhneuv ei to; mavnna. tou'to de; kai; hJ iJstoriva didavskei:

ijdovnte" ......., gavr fhsin, oiJ uiJoi; ∆Israhvl, ei\ pon e{tero" tw' /

eJtev rw/, tiv ejsti tou' to; ouj ga; r h[ /desan tiv h\ n:b ejgev neto toiv nun hJ

ejrwvthsi" o[ noma. to; de; wJ" ejgkri;" ejn mevlitic oJ Suvmmaco" ou{tw" hJrmhv neusen: wJ" a[ mulo" ejn mevliti.

To; de; govmor mevtron h\ n eJbrai>kov n.d didavskei de; oJ nomoqevth"

o{ti to; devkaton h\ n tw' n triw' n mevtrwn:e wJ" de; ∆Iwvshpo" e[ fh,

trei' " h{ misu kotuvla" ajttika;" e[ cei.f

Dia; tiv to; kataleifqe; n eij" th; n uJsteraivan tou' mav nna

diefqavrh;a

jEpeidh; novmou paravbasi" h\ n. didavskwn ga;r aujtou;" tw' n

frontivdwn ejleuvqeron bivon, uJpevsceto kaqæ eJkavsthn aujtoi'"

hJmevran parev cein th; n aj nagkaivan trofhv n.b ejkei' noi de;

ajpisthvsante", mevro" ti tou' sullegev nto" eij" th; n uJsteraivan

ej fuvlaxan. dia; tou'to ejpwvzesen. o{ti ga;r ouj th'" tou' mav nna

fuvsew" h\ n to; pavqo" marturei' to; savbbaton, ej n w | / ajlwvbhton

diethrhvqh to; th' / paraskeuh' / sullegev n:c marturei' de; kai; to; ej n

th' / kibwtw' / ejpi; pollai'" diafulacqe; n geneai'".d

Dia; tiv ej n toi'" savbbasin ouj parevsce to; mav nna;a

jEpeidh; mov noi" aujtoi'" tou' sabbavtou th; n ajrgivan


b. Ex .mmc. Ex .mmd. Ex .mme. Ex .mmf. Ios., A.I. .

A –6 [ ], B, C, = mss.

a. Ex .mmb. Ex .mmc. Ex .–mmd. Ex .f.

A –6 [ ], B, C, = mss.

a. Ex .mm



cred history, “When the children of Israel saw it, one said to the oth-

er, ‘What is it?’ since they did not know what it was.”1b So the ques-

tion became the name. Symmachus rendered the phrase “like pastry

made with honey”c as “like a cake of fine meal made with honey.”

The homer was a Hebrew measure.d As the lawgiver explains, “It

was the tenth part of three measures,”e whereas, according to Jose-

phus, “it contained three and a half Attic cups.”f

Why did any manna left over for the next day spoil?a

Because this was a transgression of the law. You see, to teach them

about a life free from daily concerns, he promised to provide them

with the food necessary for each day.b But, in their lack of faith, they

kept part of what they had gathered for the next day, and as a result

it went bad. The Sabbath provides proof that the trouble was not in-

herent in the nature of the manna, because, on that day, manna

gathered the day before remained fresh.c And this is confirmed by

the manna that was preserved in the ark for many generations.d

Why did he provide no manna on the Sabbaths?a

Since he established the law of inactivity on the Sabbath for them

Question

. This popular etymology, attested also in Jos., A.J. ., is not, in fact, accurate,

since the correct Hebrew would be mâ hû. The term is actually derived from thename of a tamarisk indigenous to Palestine and the Sinai; v. R.J. Clifford, on Ex .–.



ej nomoqevthsen, e[rgw/ aujtou;" ejdivdaxe fulavttein th; n ej ntolhv n.b

to; n de; th'" fuvsew" oujk ejkwvluse drovmon: aj nivscei ga;r h{lio" kai;

selhv nh wJsauvtw" kai; ta; nev fh to; n uJ eto; n wjdiv nei, kai; a[ nemoi

pnevousi, kai; gunai'ke" tivktousi kai; tw' n ajlovgwn ta; gev nh.

Poivoi" o{ploi" ej crw' nto, tw' / ∆Amalh;k polemou' nte";a

Tw' n aijguptivwn uJpobrucivwn gegenhmev nwn, ejxebravsqh aujtw' n

eij" th; n hji>ov na meta; tw' n o{plwn ta; swvmata.b

tau'taskuleuvsante", ej crw' nto touvtoi" ej n toi'" polevmoi".

Dia; tiv, tw' n Mwu>sevw" ceirw' n ejktetamev nwn, ej nivka ∆Israhvl,

kaqiemev nwn dev, hJtta'to;a

Tou' staurwqev nto" uJpe;r hJmw' n ejplhvrou to; n tuvpon, ejkteiv nwn

ta;" cei'ra". ejdeiv cqh toiv nun kai; ej n tw' / tuvpw/ th'" ajlhqeiva" hJ

duv nami": w{sper ga;r tou' qeravponto" ta;" cei'ra" ejkteiv nonto",

e[pesen ∆Amalhvk, ou{tw" tou' despovtou ta;" cei'ra" ejkteiv nanto",

kateluvqh tou' diabovlou to; sti' fo". kai; ej n ejkeiv nw/ de; tw' / polevmw/

oJ tou' swth'ro" hJmw' n oJmwv numo" to; trovpaion e[sthse, tovte

tauvthn th; n proshgorivan labw; n kai; toi'" logavsi crhsavmeno"

sunergoi'"b wJ" oJ despovth" Cristo;" uJpourgoi'" toi'" iJ eroi'"ajpostovloi".


b. Ex .–

A –6 [ ], B, C, = mss.

a. Ex .– mmb. Ex .

A –6 [ ], B, C, = mss.

a. Ex .mmb. Ex .–



alone, this was a way to instruct them to observe his command.b On

the other hand, he did not halt the course of nature: the sun and

moon rise, the clouds bring forth rain, the winds blow, and women

and the different species of animals give birth on the Sabbath.

What weapons did they use to fight against Amalek?1a

When the Egyptians were drowned, their bodies were cast up on

the shore with their weapons.b

They plundered these and used themin warfare.

Why was Israel victorious when Moses stretched out his hands,

but defeated when he let them drop?a

When Moses stretched out his hands, he represented a type of

him who was crucified for us; the power of the reality was demon-

strated even in the type. As Amalek fell when the servant stretched

out his hands, so the devil’s column was routed when the Lord

stretched out his. And, in that battle, he who bore our Savior’s name

first took that name when he set up the trophy and employed some

picked men as his helpers,b as Christ the Lord employed the sacred

apostles as his lieutenants.1

Question

. Here is another merely inquisitive question possessing none of the typologi-cal interest of the next item. Theodoret delays comment on the provocation of God and the miracle of water flowing from the rock (Ex .–) until he comes tothe doublet at Nm .– (Q. on Nm); cf Q. on Dt.

. In Ex .– Joshua and his chosen men rout Amalek. “Joshua” is the samename as “Jesus”; in the LXX and the NT both are spelled jIhsou'". The term trov-paion (trophy) is very frequently applied to the cross and death of Christ; v. PGL,sub. uoc. . For similar uses of this noun as the direct object of the verb i{sthmi (toset up): cf. Chrys., hom. . (al. .) in Ioh.: [some say that Christ] e[ nqa oJ qav na-to~ ejbasivleusen, ejkei` kai; to; trovpaion sthsai (i.e., on Calvary).



Tiv ejstin e[sesqev moi lao;" periouvsio" ajpo; pavntwn tw' n

ejqnw' n: ej mh; gav r ejsti pa' sa hJ gh' ; a

Pav ntwn eijmiv, fhsiv, poihth;" kai; despovth" kai; pav ntwn wJ"

poihth;" promhqou'mai, uJma'" de; oi |ov n tina lao; n ejxaivreton

ejmautw' / aj fievrwsa. tou'to ga;r ejphvgagen: uJ mei' " de; e[sesqev moi

eij" basivleion iJeravteuma......., e[qno" a{gion.b w{sper ga;r tou;"

leuivta", ijsrahlivta" o[ nta", tw' n a[llwn fulw' n protetivmhke kai;

eij" th; n qeivan aj fwvrise leitourgivan,c ouj tw' n a[llwn ajmelw' n,ajlla; dia; touvtwn th; n ejkeiv nwn poiouvmeno" ejpimevleian, ou{tw to;

tou' ∆Abraavm, kai; ∆Isaavk, kai; ∆Iakw;b ejxelevxato spevrma: prw'ton

ejpeidh; ejx aujtw' n h[melle kata; savrka blastav nein oJ despovth"

Cristov": e[peita dia; tw' n eij" touvtou" ginomev nwn th; n oijkeivan

ejpideiknu;" duv namin kai; pav nta" didavskwn aj nqrwvpou" th; n th'"

qeognwsiva" oJdov n. touvtwn mev ntoi eijrhmev nwn, ajpekrivqh.......pa' " oJ

lao;" .......kai; ei\ pe, pavnta o{sa ei\ pen oJ Qeo;" poihvsomen kai;ajkousov meqa.d au{th de; hJ tou' laou' sunqhvkh uJpografh' / tini e[oike

grammativou. o{qen th; n oijkeivan parabav nte" oJmologivan, tai'"

th'" nomoqesiva" ajrai'" uJpeblhvqhsan,e w | n tou;" eij" aujto; n

pepisteukovta" oJ despovth" Cristo;" hjleuqevrwse: Cristov", gavr

fhsin, ejxhgov rasen hJ ma' " ejk th' " katav ra" tou' nov mou, genov meno"

uJpe; r hJ mw' n katav ra.f to; mev ntoi periouvsio", ejxaiv reto" oJ

Suvmmaco" hJrmhv neusen.


A –6 [ ], B, C–51, = mss.

a. Ex .mmb. Ex .mmc. Nm .–mmd. Ex .mme. Dt .–mmf. Gal .



What is the meaning of “You will be my special people out of all

the nations, for all the earth is mine”?a

He means, “I am Creator and Lord of the universe, and, as Cre-

ator, I care for everything, but you I have consecrated to myself as a

chosen people.” In fact, he went on, “You will be my royal priest-

hood, my holy nation.”1b In other words, as he honored the Levites

—though they were Israelites like the rest—over the other tribes,

and consecrated them to the divine worshipc without neglecting,but actually showing care for, the others through the Levites, so he

chose the offspring of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. First, because

Christ the Lord would draw his descent from them according to the

flesh. Next, to give evidence of his power through the acts he per-

formed for them and to teach all men the way of the knowledge of

God. Indeed, when God had made this promise, “All the people

replied and declared, ‘We shall do and heed everything God hassaid.’”d Now, this agreement of the people resembled a signature to a

contract. Hence, when they broke their own agreement, they be-

came liable to the curses prescribed by the Law,e from which Christ

the Lord freed those who believe in him: “Christ redeemed us from

the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us.”f Instead of “spe-

cial” Symmachus rendered “chosen.”

Question

. In this interpretation of Ex .f. Theodoret anticipates the conclusions of modern scholarship. Noting the problematic movement of thought from choice of

the people to mention of priesthood, he concludes the text must imply that thechoice of the line of Abraham from all other peoples resembled the privileged po-sition of the Levites among the other tribes; cf. R.J. Clifford ad loc.



Tiv dhv pote, ouj mov non aJgnisqh' nai, ajlla; kai; plu' nai ta;

iJmavtia prosetav cqhsan hJ nivka to; n novmon ejdev conto;a

Dia; tw' n swmatikw' n aujtou;" ejpi; ta; pneumatika; podhgei', kai;

devo" ej ntivqhsi, kai; eujlabestevrou" poiei': ejlogivzonto ga;r ejk

touvtwn wJ" pollw' / ma'llon th; n diav noian kaqareuv ein proshvkei.

diav toi tou'to kai; salpivggwn fwnaiv, kai; ktuvpoi brontw' n, kai;

gnov fo", kai; quv ella, kai; pu'r ej n th' / tou' o[rou" ajkrwreiva/, kai;

kavpno" a[ frasto" ejkpempovmeno"b i{ na dia; touvtwn aJpav ntwn th;n liqivnhn aujtw' n katamalavxh/ kardivan.c ejpeidh; ga;r ta;" me; n toi'"

aijguptivoi" ejpenecqeivsa" ejqeavsanto timwriva", aujtoi; de; pei'ran

th'" paideiva" oujk e[labon, dia; touvtwn dedivttetai oi |a dh;

pai'da", w{ste, mh; mov non ajgapa' n dia; ta;" ajrrhvtou" euj ergesiva",

ajlla; kai; dediev nai dia; ta;" timwriva". touvtou cavrin kai; peri;

tw' n iJ erevwn e[ fh, oiJ iJerei' ", oiJ ejggivzonte" Kurivw/ tw' / Qew' /,

aJgiasqhvtwsan mhv pote ajpallavxh/ ajpæ aujtw' n Kuv rio".d

ejpeidh;ga;r eijko;" h\ n aujtou;" qarrei' n, a{te dh; th; n qeivan leitourgivan

pepisteumev nou", didavskei wJ" diaferov ntw" tou;" leitourgei' n

tw' / Qew' / protetagmev nou" uJpertevrou" ei\ nai tw' n ghiv > nwn

proshvkei.


A –6 [ ], B, C–51, = mss.

a. Ex .mmb. Ex .f.mmc. Ezek .mmd. Ex .



Why were they ordered, not just to sanctify themselves, but also

to wash their garments when they were about to receive the Law?a

Through the bodily, he guided them to the spiritual, realities. He

also instilled fear and put them into a more reverent frame of mind.

In fact, they deduced from these instructions the much greater im-

portance of purity of mind. The trumpet blasts, thunder claps, dark-

ness, hurricane, the fire on the top of the mountain, and the mar-

velous cloud of smokeb were surely all means of softening their“stony heart.”c Since they had observed the punishments inflicted on

the Egyptians without themselves undergoing the experience of cor-

rection, he used these portents to terrify them like children, the re-

sult being that they not only loved him for his ineffable favors but

also feared him for his punishments. Therefore, he also said in re-

gard to the priests,“Let the priests approaching the Lord God sancti-

fy themselves lest the Lord destroy any of them.”d

In other words,since their commission to perform the divine service was probably

encouraging an attitude of overconfidence, he taught those appoint-

ed to conduct the worship of God that they should stand out by

their superiority to earthly concerns.

Question



Pw'" nohtevon to; oujk e[sontaiv soi qeoi; e{teroi plh;n ej mou' ; a

OiJ mivan oujsivan th'" triavdo" oJmologou' nte" fulavttousi to; n

novmon th'" qeiva" fwnh'": a[llo gavr ti para; th; n qeivan fuvsin

qeopoiei' n oujk aj nev contai. oiJ de; th; n ∆Areivou kai; Euj nomivou

perikeivmenoi lwvbhn to; n qei'on novmon a[ ntikru" parabaiv nousin,

Qeo; n me; n to; n uiJo; n oJmologou' nte", ktisto; n de; ajpokalou' nte"

kai; th'" qeiva" oujsiva" ajllovtrion. tou' ga;r Qeou' levgonto", oujk e[sontaiv soi qeoi; e{teroi plh;n ej mou' , ou |toi e{teron Qeo; n

ejpeisavgousin.

Ei[dwlon kai; oJ moivwmaa

poivan e[ cei diaforav n;To; ei[dwlon oujdemivan uJpovstasin e[ cei, to; de; oJmoivwma tinov"

ejstin i[ ndalma kai; ajpeivkasma. ejpeidh; toiv nun e{llhne"

aj naplavttousi ta;" ouj c uJ festwvsa" morfav": sfivgga", kai;

trivtwna", kai; kentauvrou": kai; aijguvptioi kunoproswvpou" kai;

boukefavlou", ei[dwla kalei' ta; tw' n ouj c uJ festwvtwn mimhvmata,

oJmoiwvmata de; ta; tw' n uJ festwvtwn eijkavsmata oi |on hJlivou kai;

selhv nh", ajstevrwn, aj nqrwvpwn, qhrivwn, eJrpetw' n, kai; tw' n

touvtoi" paraplhsivwn. touvtoi" keleuv ei mhvte proskunei' n mhvte

latreuv ein.b ouj c aJplw'" de; ajpagoreuv ei ajmfovtera ajllæ, ejpeidh;

sumbaiv nei tina;" proskunh'sai me; n dia; fovbon aj nqrwvpinon ouj

mh; n kai; latreu'sai kata; yuchv n, ejdivdaxen wJ" eJkavteron ajsebev".


A –6 [ ], B, C, * = mss.

a. Ex .

A –6 [ ], B, C, = mss.

a. Ex .mmb. Ex .



How are we to understand the verse “You shall have no other

gods but me”?a

Those who confess the oneness of being of the Trinity observe

this law of God’s utterance. They refuse to make a god of anything

but divinity. By contrast, those infected with the ailment of Arius

and Eunomius blatantly transgress the Law of God when they con-

fess the Son to be God, but degrade him by calling him a creature

and divorced from the divine being. Though God says, “You shallhave no other gods but me,” they introduce a second God.1

What is the difference between “an idol” and “a likeness”?a

An idol has no reality behind it, while a likeness is an image and

representation of someone or something. So since the Greeks mold

forms of non-existent beings, such as sphinxes, tritons, and cen-

taurs, and the Egyptians dog-faced and bull-headed beings, he re-

ferred by “idols” to representations of the non-existent. By “like-

nesses” he meant images of things that do exist, like the sun and

moon, the stars, human beings, animals, reptiles, and the like. He

forbade them to bow down to or worship these,b each prohibition

being based on good reason. Since people sometimes bow down out

of human respect without actually offering worship in their heart,

he taught that both actions are idolatrous.1

Question

. Theodoret pays no attention to the opening statement of antecedent divinebeneficence in ., which provides the basis for the commands that follow; cf.Clifford on .–. He sees the first commandment (.) as infringed rather by Arians and Eunomians than by Jews.

. With typical Antiochene precision (ajkrivbeia), Theodoret notes the occur-



To; Qeo;" zhlwth;" tiv ejstin;a

J O novmo" tavxin ejpev cei aj ndrov", oJ de; lao;" gunaikov", kai;

tou'to hJma'" ejdivdaxen oJ despovth" Qeov", dia; me; n ∆Hsaiv >ou

levgwn, poi' on tou' to to; biblivon tou' ajpostasivou th' " mhtro;"

uJ mw' n:b dia; de; ÔIeremivou, kaqw;" ajqetei' gunh; eij" to;n sunovnta

aujth' /, ou{tw" hjqevthsen eij" ej me; oJ oi\ ko" ∆Israh;l kai; oJ oi\ ko"

∆Iouvda, levgei Kuv rio":c kai; pavlin, eja;n ajposteivlh/ ajnh; r th;n

gunai' ka aujtou' , kai; poreuqei' sa.......gevnhtai ajndri; eJtev rw/, mh;ajnakav mptousa ajnakav myei pro;" aujto;n e[ti; ouj miainomevnh

mianqhvsetai hJ gunh; ejkeivnh; su; de; ejxepov rneusa" eij" poimevna"

pollouv", kai; ajnevkampte" prov" me ; levgei Kuv rio":d kai; oJ

ajpovstolo" dev fhsin, o{ti oJ nov mo" kurieuvei tou` ajnqrwvpou ejfæ

o{son crovnon zh' /: hJ ga; r u{pandro" gunh; tw' / zw' nti ajndri; devdetai

nov mw/: eja;n de; ajpoqavnh/ oJ ajnhv r, kathv rghtai ajpo; tou' nov mou tou'

ajndro;" .......tou' mh; ei\ nai aujth;n moicalivda, genomevnhn ajndri;eJtev rw/. ou{tw" kai; uJ mei' " ejqanatwvqhte tw' / nov mw/ dia; tou' swv mato"

tou' Cristou' eij" to; genevsqai uJ ma' " eJtev rw/, tw' / ejk nekrw' n

ejgerqevnti.e touvtou cavrin Qeo; n zhlwth; n eJauto; n oj nomavzei, toi'"

aj nqrwpiv noi" me; n kecrhmev no" oj novmasi, dedittovmeno" de; aujtou;"

kai; swfronei' n aj nagkavzwn: w{sper ga;r aj nh;r rJavqumon e[ cwn

gunai'ka parainw' n aujth' / levgei, zhlovtupov" eijmi, ouj duv namai

blevpein se a[llw/ prosdialegomev nhn aj ndriv, ou{tw" oJ despovth"

Qeov", th'" deisidaimoniva" aujtou;" ajpallavxai boulovmeno", ouj

mov non zhlwth;n eJautov n, ajlla; kai; pu' r katanalivskon f ejkavlesen.

{ Oti de; filostorgiva" oJ toiou'to" zh'lo", aujto;" tou'to

dedhvlwken oJ Qeo;" dia; tou' ∆Iezekih;l eijpwv n, dia; tou' to

ajposthvsetai oJ zh' lov" mou ajpo; sou` ,g toutevstin, o{te hjgavpwn,


A –6 [ ], B, C –52 , = mss.

a. Ex .mmb. Is .mmc. Jer . (LXX var.)mmd. Jer . (LXX)mme. Rom .–mmf. Dt .mmg. Ezek .mm



What does “a jealous God” mean?a

The Law has the role of husband, and the people that of wife, as

the Lord God taught us when he said through Isaiah, “What is this

bill of divorce of your mother?”;b and through Jeremiah, “As a wife

breaks faith with her partner, so the house of Israel and the house of

Judah have broken faith with me, says the Lord”;c and again, “If a

husband sends his wife away, and she goes off to another husband,

will she really return to him again? Will not that wife be defiled forgood? But you have prostituted yourself with many shepherds, and

you now return to me? says the Lord.”d And the apostle says, “The

Law is binding on a person only so long as he lives; for example, the

wife is bound by law to her husband as long as he live, but if her

husband die, she is discharged from the law concerning her hus-

band, so that she is not an adulteress if she marry another husband.

Likewise you, too, have died to the Law through the body of Christso as to belong to another, who has risen from the dead.”e God calls

himself “a jealous God,” using a human expression to put fear into

them and compel them to live chastely. As a husband with a frivo-

lous wife puts her on notice saying, “I am jealous and cannot bear to

see you talking to another man,” so the Lord God, wanting to rid

them of superstition, called himself “jealous” and even “a consum-

ing fire.”f

Now, God himself indicated that jealousy arises from affection

when he declared through Ezekiel, “Therefore, my jealousy will turn

away from you.”g That is, “When I loved you, I showed my jealousy,

Question

rence of pairs of terms and shows that each member of the apparent duplicationpossesses a meaning of its own; v. sec. of the “Introduction to Theodoret’ s Lifeand Works.”



ej crwvmhn tw' / zhvlw/: ajpwsavmeno" dev se, kai; to; n zh'lon e[sbesa.

tou'to kai; diæ eJtevrou profhvtou dedhvlwken: oujk ejpiskevyomai

ejpi; ta;" qugatev ra" uJ mw' n o{tan porneuvswsi kai; ejpi; ta;" nuv mfa"

uJ mw' n o{tan moiceuvswsin.h ajgavph" toiv nun oJ zh'lo" dhlwtikov".

Pw'" to; divkaion swvzetai, tw' n paivdwn uJpe;r tw' n patevrwn

kolazomev nwn;a

() Meivzou" aiJ ajpeilai; tw' n kolavsewn para; tw' / despovth/Qew' /. kai; tou'to rJav /dion maqei' n para; th'" qeiva" grafh'": pa'",

gavr fhsin, ajperivtmhto" a[ rshn, o}" ouj peritmhqhvsetai.......th' /

hJ mev ra/ th' / ojgdovh/, ejxoloqreuqhvsetai.b ajllæ e[stin euJrei' n tou;"

me; n peritetmhmev nou" ej n th' / ejrhvmw/ diafovrw" aj naireqev nta",

tou;" de; ajperitmhvtou" memenhkovta" th'" tw' n progov nwn

ejpaggeliva" tetuchkovta": touvtou" ga;r ej n Galgavloi" ∆Ihsou'"

perievtemen.c ou{tw tai'" ej couvsai" zuvmhn oijkivai" panwleqrivan

hjpeivlhsend ajllæ oujk ejphvgage th; n timwrivan kata; th; n ajpeilhv n.

Kai; ej ntau'qa toiv nun, wJ" filovpaida" kai; filopaidiva"

pefrontikovta" dedivttetai tai'" ajpeilai'" kaiv fhsin, ajpodidou;"

aJ martiva" patev rwn ejpi; tevkna ejpi; trivthn kai; tetav rthn genea;n

toi' " misou' siv me.e o{ti ga;r gumnw' / prosev cein tw' / gravmmati

dussebe;" aujto;" oJ Qeo;" didavskei, taj nantiva nomoqetw' n: oujk

ajpoqanou' ntai, gavr fhsi, pai' de" uJpe; r patev rwn, oujde; patev re"

uJpe; r paivdwn, ajllæ e{kasto" ejn th' / aJ martiva/ aujtou' ajpoqanei' tai:f

kai; dia; tou' profhvtou ∆Iezekihvl fhsi, tiv" uJ mi' n hJ parabolh;

au{th.......legovntwn, oiJ patev re" e[fagon o[ mfaka, kai; oiJ ojdovnte"

tw' n tevknwn hJ / mwdivasan ; zw' ejgwv, levgei Kuv rio", eij e[stai.......hJ


h. Hos .mm

A –6 [ ], B, C, (inc.) = mss.

a. Ex .mmb. Gn .mmc. Jos .–mmd. Ex ., mme. Ex .mmf. Dt .mmmm



but when I rejected you, I quenched my jealousy.”1 He conveyed the

same idea through another prophet as well: “I shall not call your

daughters to account for their prostitution, or your daughters-in-

law for their adultery.”h Jealousy, then, is indicative of love.

How is justice preserved if children are punished for their par-

ents?a

() With the Lord God, threats exceed punishments. It is an easy matter to prove this from holy Scripture: “Every uncircumcised

male not circumcised on the eighth day will be destroyed,”b it says,

yet note that in the wilderness it was the circumcised who were sin-

gled out for destruction while the uncircumcised received the fulfil-

ment of the promise made to their ancestors. It was these that

Joshua circumcised at Gilgal.c Similarly, he threatened destruction

on any household that had leavend but never proceeded to impose

the punishment according to his threat.

In this case, he uses threats to put fear into people who loved

children and large families, when he says, “I bring the sins of the

parents upon the children to the third and fourth generation of

those who hate me.”e God himself teaches us that it is irreligious to

focus on the face value of the text when he requires the opposite:

“Children will not die for parents, nor parents for children; rather,

each will die for his own sin.” f And through the prophet Ezekiel hesays, “What do you mean by the proverb, “The parents ate sour

grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge? As I live, says the

Question

. Theodoret had offered the same interpretation of Ezek . in his commen-tary on Ezekiel, composed some twenty-five years earlier.



parabolh; au{th:g ajlla; tw' n fagovntwn to;n o[ mfaka

aiJ mwdiavsousin oiJ ojdovnte",h o{ti pa' sai aiJ yucai; ej maiv eijsi:i kai;

ta; eJxh'" de; th; n aujth; n e[ cei diav noian.

() ∆Egw; de; oi\mai ma'llon th; n qeivan filanqrwpivan ejmfaiv neinth; n ajpeilhv n. provskeitai ga;r toi' " misou' siv me: toutevsti,

makroqumw' toi'" patravsin hJmarthkovsi, makroqumw' kai; paisiv n:

eij de; oiJ e[kgonoi kai; oiJ ajpovgonoi th; n tw' n patevrwn kai;

progov nwn zhlwvsaien ponhrivan, ejpavxw th; n timwrivan. hJ de; tw' n

progov nwn eujsevbeia mev cri pollou' tw' / gev nei proxenhvsei th; n

swthrivan: poiw' n, gavr fhsin, e[leon eij" ciliavda" kai; muriavda"

toi' " ajgapw' siv me kai; toi' " fulavttousi ta; prostavgmatav mou. j

Eu{roi dæ a[ n ti" kaj n th' / iJstoriva/ th; n tw' n qeivwn logivwn

ajlhvqeian: pev mpth/.......ga;r genea' /, fhsiv n, ajnev bhsan oiJ uiJoi;

∆Israh;l ejx ....... Aijguvptou.k ajlla; toi'" tw' n aijguptivwn ej n Aijguvptw/

dedouleukovte" qeoi'", ouj|k e[tisan divka" ou[te oiJ patevre"

aujtw' n, ou[te oiJ propavtore" aujtw' n. aujtoi; dev, zhlwvsante" th; n

ejkeiv nwn ajsevbeian, ejkolavsqhsan, wJ" meta; tosauvthn euj ergesivan

kai; ta; muriva qauvmata th; n ajsevbeian oujk ejkptuvsante". oiJ de;

touvtwn pai'de", to; n swth'ra Qeo; n hjgaphkovte", th'" progonikh'"

ajphvlausan uJposcevsew". kai; oJrw'men to; aj yeude;" th'" pro;"

tou;" patriavrca" gegenhmev nh" ejpaggeliva": ta; ga;r e[qnh dia;

tou' spevrmato" ∆Abraa;m th'" eujlogiva" tetuv chken.l

jEpeidh; toiv nun to; n movscon h[mellon proskunei' n, th; n

timwrivan prosapeilei'.


|4

g. Ezek .f.mmh. Jer . (LXX)mmi. Ezek .mm j. Ex . (LXX var.)mmk. Ex .mml. Gn .



Lord, this proverb will no more apply;g rather those who eat the

sour grapes will have their teeth set on edge,h because all souls are

mine”;i the rest has the same sense.1

() In my view the threat actually has the effect of highlightingdivine loving-kindness. Indeed, following this threat we find the

phrase: “of those who hate me.” That is, “I show long-suffering to

parents who sin, and I show loving-kindness also to their children,

but if their offspring and their descendants emulate the wickedness

of their parents and forebears, I shall inflict punishment.” In con-

trast, the piety of forebears will bring about salvation for many a

generation, for God says, “I show mercy to thousands and tens of thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.”2j

The events of sacred history prove the dependability of the divine

prophecy. “In the fifth generation,” it says, “the children of Israel

went up from Egypt.” k While they were in Egypt, neither their fathers

nor their forefathers paid the penalty for their slavish subjection to

the Egyptian gods, but this generation was punished for emulating

their idolatry, since even after they had experienced so much kind-

ness and countless marvels, they did not reject the idolatry of their

forbears. But their children, who loved God their Savior, came into

the enjoyment of the promise made to their ancestors. And we wit-

ness the reliability of the promise made to the patriarchs, for the na-

tions have attained the blessing through the offspring of Abraham.l

And a further point—he also threatened them, since they were

just about to adore the calf.

Question

. Always anxious to resolve an apparent contradiction in the Bible, Theodoretcites Dt . and a form of Ezek .– much influenced by Jer. . to claim thatthe literal sense (gumno; n gravmma) is not a sure guide to the real meaning of Scrip-ture.

. In the Göttingen edition of the Septuagint, J.W. Wevers and U. Quast rele-gate the reading kai; muriavda~ (“tens of thousands,” Ex .) to the apparatus criticus; it is attested only here by Theodoret and in the thirty-fifth of the Interro-gationes et Responsiones (Questions and Answers ) attributed to Anastasius Sinaita,the seventh-century theologian and abbot of the monastery of St. Catherine onMt. Sinai; v. PG, vol. , col. .



Tiv ejstin ouj lhvyh/ to; o[noma Kurivou tou' Qeou' sou ejpi;

mataivw/; a

Tinev" fasin ajpagoreuv ein to; ejpiqei' nai toi'" mataivoi",

toutevsti toi'" eijdwvloi", th; n tou' Qeou' |proshgorivan, tine;" de;

to; ojmwmokovta yeuvsasqai. ejgw; de; oi\mai to; n qei'on

parakeleuv esqai novmon div ca didaskaliva", h] proseuch'", h]

aj nagkaiva" tino;" creiva", th; n qeivan mh; profevrein proshgorivan:

kai; ga;r eijwvqasiv tine", kai; paivzonte" kai; gelw' nte", profevreinwJ" e[tuce dia; th'" glwvtth" to; sebavsmion o[ noma. tou'to oi\mai

to; n qei'on novmon ajpagoreuv ein. eij ga;r th; n polutelestevran

ejsqh'ta tai'" eJortai'" fulavttein eijwvqasin oiJ polloiv, pollw' /

ma'llon to; qei'on o[ noma proseucai'" kai; didaskalivai" aj fierou' n

divkaion.

Dia; tiv to; savbbaton th' / ajrgiva/ tetivmhken; a

Filanqrwpivan to; n lao; n ejxepaivdeusen. ejphvgage ga;r i{na

ajnapauvshtai oJ pai' " sou, kai; hJ paidivskh sou,b oJ bou' " sou, kai;

to; uJpozuvgiovn sou, kai; pa' n kth' nov" sou, kai; oJ proshvluto", oJ

paroikw' n ejn soiv.c


|6

c (inc.) [ ], , a 2, B, C, = mss.

a. Ex .

A [ ], B, C, = mss.

a. Ex .–mmb. Dt .mmc. Ex .



What is the meaning of “You shall not take the name of the Lord

your God in vain”?a

Some commentators have claimed that the prohibition concerns

giving empty objects—namely, idols—the name of God; others, the

swearing of false oaths.1 My own view is that the Law of God forbids

invoking the divine name outside of teaching or prayer or apart

from some urgent need. There are those, in fact, who are in the habit

of uttering the august name quite casually, even when joking and jesting. I think this is what God’s Law forbids. After all, if it is a gen-

eral custom to keep one’s finer attire for festivals, it is far more im-

portant to reserve the divine name for prayer and teaching.

Why did he dignify the Sabbath with rest?a

To teach the people a lesson in loving-kindness. As he went on to

say, “so that your servant and maidservant,b your ox, your beast of

burden, and all your cattle, and the alien dwelling among you may

take their rest.”c

Question

. The latter view is endorsed by R.J. Clifford (on .): “The prohibition seems

to be against the false use of an oath in legal proceedings rather than a general lack of reverence for the name.” A bishop is naturally concerned with profanity in ordi-nary discourse.



Kai; dia; tiv mh; ej n a[llh/ hJmevra/ tou'to genevsqai prosevtaxen;

Tou'to a[ n ti" ei[poi kai; peri; a[llh" hJmevra": tiv dhv pote

tauvthn ejxelevxato kai; ouj c eJtevran; ei\ ce de; o{mw" au{th lovgon

tina; pei'sai dunavmenon th; n ijoudaivwn wjmovthta: tw' / to; n tw' n

o{lwn Qeo; n ej n e}x hJmevrai" ta; pav nta dhmiourgh'sai, ej n de; th' /

eJbdovmh/ mhde; n me; n poih'sai, eujlogiva/ de; tauvthn timh'sai. tou'to

ga;r kai; ejphvgagen o{ti, ejn .......e}x hJ mev rai" ejpoivhse Kuv rio" oJ

Qeov" sou to;n ouj ranovn, kai; th;n gh' n, kai; th;n qavlassan, kai;pavnta ta; ejn aujtoi' ": kai; katevpause th' / hJ mev ra/ th' /

eJ bdov mh/.......kai; hJgivasen aujthvn.a

Tiv ejstin eja;n de; qusiasthv rion ejk livqwn poih' /" moi, oujk oijkodomhvsei" aujtou;" tmhtouv": to; ga; r ejgceirivdiovn sou

ejpibev blhka" ejpæ aujtov, kai; memivantai; a

{ Oti sidhvrw/ ej crw' nto kai; oiJ ta; xuvla th'" skhnh'"

tekthnavmenoi kai; oiJ to; n crusov n, kai; to; n a[rguron, kai; to; n

calko; n ejrgasavmenoi oujdev na aj nterei' n oi\mai. o{ti de; kai; oiJ

iJ erei'" tai'" macaivrai" iJ evreuon ta;" qusiva", kai; ajpevderon, kai;


A [ ], B, C –52 , = mss.

l. ei[poi B, : ei\pe Sir. Sch. F.M. = “You would have raised the same question about any other day .” Thdt. is here expressing, not a contrary-to-factnotion, but one of conditioned futurity; cf. the precisely similar construction inQ. on Gn (Tou'to a[ n ti" ei[poi kai; peri; tou' aj nqrwvpou). The aoristindicative is merely an error of etacism (cf. the critical note on w/ jkodomhsqai inQ. on Gn).

a. Ex . (LXX var.)

A [ ], B, C, = mss.

a. Ex .mm



Why not require this for some other day?

You could raise the same question about any other day: why he

chose that day and not another. Nevertheless, this day did offer a

reason sufficient to overcome the harshness of the Jews: the fact that

the God of the universe created everything in six days but did noth-

ing on the seventh, which he dignified with a blessing. As he went

on to say, “In six days the Lord your God made heaven and earth,

the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day andhallowed it.”a

What is the meaning of “If you make me an altar of stones, youshall not build it of hewn stones, for if you put a tool to it, they are

defiled”?a

I believe no one will deny that the carpenters of the tabernacle

and the gold-, silver-, and bronze-smiths used iron. And I believe it

is also beyond question that the priests used knives to slaughter,

skin, and divide the sacrificial victims. Therefore, the question is, if

Question



e[temnon, aj namfivlekton ei\ nai oi\mai kai; tou'to. zhthtevon

toiv nun pw'" tau'ta me; n oJ sivdhro" oujk ejmivaine, tou;" de; tmhtou;"

ejmivaine livqou". toigavrtoi dh'lov n ejstin wJ" a[lla diæ a[llwn

kataskeuavzei. ejpeidh; ga;r ej n th' / ejrhvmw/ tessaravkontadietevlesan e[th, sunecw'" ajpaivronte" kai; tou;" tovpou"

ajmeivbonte", ajpagoreuv ei ejk livqwn eijrgasmev nwn oijkodomei'sqai

qusiasthvria i{ na mhv, touvtwn th; n gh' n th; n ejphggelmev nhn

ajpeilhfovtwn, ej n toi'" qusiasthrivoi" touvtoi" oiJ plhsiov cwroi

ta;" tw' n daimov nwn qusiva" ejpitelevswsi. dia; tou'to prosevtaxen

h] ejk gh'" h] ejx aujtofuw' n livqwn tau'ta kataskeuavzesqai,

ejpeidhvper eJkavteron eujdiavluton. o{ti dev, meta; th; n tou' naou'kataskeuhv n, oujk ejxh' n ej n eJtevrw/ quv ein aujto;" oJ novmo" didavskei.

eij de; quv ein e[xw tou' naou' oJ novmo" ajpei'rge,b kai; to;

qusiasthvrion oijkodomei' n wJsauvtw" ejkwvlusen. aujtivka gou' n eij"

e[legcon tw' n ajsebouv ntwn ∆Hliva", oJ pav nu, prosenegkei' n ej n tw' /

Karmhvlw/ qusivan aj nagkasqeiv", ijsarivqmou" tw' n fulw' n

aujtofuei'" sunevqhke livqou" kai; ejpi; touvtwn th; n qusivan

proshv negken w{ste th; n oijkodomivan eujqu;" dialuqh' nai, kai;

mhdev na e{teron ej n ejkeiv nw/ tw' / cwrivw/ qusivan prosenegkei' n.c

Dia; tiv tou' eJbraivou, tou' th; n ejleuqerivan devxasqai mh;

boulomev nou, diatrhqh' nai to; wjtivon prosevtaxen;a

Pav ntwn aujtou'" protima' n th; n ejleuqerivan didavskei. to; ntoiv nun, tauvth" oujk aj ntecovmenon, ajlla; th; n douleivan

ajspazovmenon eij" aijscuv nhn tou'to labei' n to; shmei'on


b. Dt .f.mmc. Kgs .f.

A [ ], B, C, = mss.

a. Ex .f.



iron did not defile these things, how did it defile the hewn stones?

We conclude that God has different things built with different in-

struments. Since they spent forty years in the wilderness, constantly

breaking camp and moving on, he forbade them to construct altarsof worked stone, so that when they had received the promised land,

the neighboring peoples would not use those altars to perform sac-

rifices to demons. Therefore, he commanded the altars be built of

earth or natural stone, since these are both easily taken down. Now,

the Law itself relates that, after the building of the Temple, they were

not allowed to sacrifice anywhere else. As the Law forbade sacrifice

outside the Temple,b

it likewise prohibited the construction of an al-tar.1 At any rate, it was in criticism of idolaters that, when con-

strained to offer sacrifice on Carmel, the great Elijah brought to-

gether as many natural stones as there were tribes and offered his

sacrifice on those stones so that immediately afterward the structure

could be taken down, and no one else would be able to offer sacri-

fice there.c

Why did he enjoin the piercing of the ear of the Hebrew who did

not want freedom?1a

To teach them to esteem freedom above everything else. He pre-scribed this sign of shame for those who did not cling to freedom

but embraced slavery. Further, the sign indicated obedience through

Question

. Believing that Moses had composed the Pentateuch, Theodoret proceeds toexplain what he takes to be a usage of the wilderness period in the light of the law of Dt .f., prescribing one central place of worship. Likewise, he apparently findsin the story of Elijah and the priests of Baal a confirmation of his conclusion thatHebrew worship had been centralized since the days of the Exodus.

. Though he has passed over the last seven commandments of the Decalogue,Theodoret pauses to discuss this intriguing passage.



parakeleuv etai. pro;" de; touvtw/ kai; uJpakoh; n dia; th'" ajkoh'" to;

shmei'on ejmfaiv nei, kai; to; para; th; n quvran to; mh; ejxei' nai

probaiv nein, oujk ejpitrevponto" tou' despovtou.

Dia; tiv provskeitai kai; douleuvsei aujtw' / eij" to;n aijw' na,a

dhvlh" ou[sh" th'" aj nqrwpiv nh" zwh'";

jEnteu'qen dh'lon wJ" ouj pantacou' oJ aijw;n tou' ajpeivrou

dhlwtiko;" ajllæ e[stin o{te kai; wJrismev nou crov nou shmantikov".ou{tw kai; oJ makavrio" levgei Dabivd, oJ aijw;n hJ mw' n eij" fwtismo;n

tou' proswvpou sou:b to; n de; aj nqrwvpinon ou{tw" wj novmase bivon.

To; n ajkousivw" pefoneukovta dia; tiv feuvgein parakeleuv etai;a

Th; n fonikh; n aujtw' n ijatreuvwn gnwvmhn kai; didavskwn wJ", eij

to; para; gnwvmhn aj nelei' n e[ nocon th' / timwriva/ poiei', pollw' /

ma'llon to; gnwvmh/ foneuv ein kolavsew" a[xion. pro;" de; touvtw/ kai;

tou;" tevmnonta" xuvla kai; tou;" ajkontivzonta" livqou"

promhqestevrou" ejrgavzetai kai; mev ntoi kai; tou;" a[llo ti

toiou'to drw' nta" paraskeuavzei dediev nai kai; trevmein i{ na mh;para; gnwvmhn tina; tw' n pelazov ntwn h] povrrwqen o[ ntwn

phmaiv nwsi. calinoi' de; kai; to; n tw' n suggenw' n tou'

pefoneumev nou qumo; n th' / tou' pefoneukovto" fugh' /.


A [ ], B, C, = mss.

a. Ex

.

mmb. Ps

.

(LXX)

A [ ], B, c, , = mss.

a. Ex .



the organ of hearing, while the provision “at the door” referred to

the prohibition against stepping outside without the master’s per-

mission.

What is the reason for the addition, “He will serve him forever,”a

when it clearly means just the length of a human life?

From this passage we may conclude that the term “ever,” “age,”

does not always indicate eternity but sometimes signifies a limitedamount of time. Likewise, when the blessed David says, “Our age in

the light of your countenance,”b he uses “age” to denote the span of a

human life.1

Why did he enjoin flight for those who had committed involun-

tary manslaughter?a

To cure their homicidal inclinations and to convey the lesson that

if he punished even involuntary manslaughter, deliberate killing

would be much more deserving of punishment.1 Furthermore, he

put those hewing wood and casting stones on their guard and made

those engaged in similar occupations tremble in fear that they might

involuntarily injure someone close by or far away. Then, with theflight of the killer, he put a check on the anger of the relatives of the

man who was slain.

Question

. Theodoret tries to explain the meaning of the term aijwv n (“age”) in Ex . by citing what he here seems to regard as a parallel usage in Ps . (LXX): oJ aijw; n

hJmw` n eij~ fwtismo; n proswvpou sou. Yet when expounding that verse in his com-mentary on the Psalms, he had tacitly acknowledged that it is very hard to elicitreal sense from the LXX version and had cited Symmachus’ rendition, which,

though it much better represents the Hebrew, does not contain the word aijwv n.

. Theodoret’s answer to this question takes no notice of Ex .–, whereMoses “looked this way and that” (NRSV ) before deliberately killing the Egyptian.



Tiv ejstin ejxeikonismevnon ; a

Fasiv, tou' swvmato" ej n th' / mhvtra/ teleivou diaplasqev nto",

tovte yucou'sqai to; e[mbruon: kai; ga;r tou' ∆Ada;m to; sw'ma

provteron oJ poihth;" diaplavsa", ou{tw" ej nefuvshse th; n yuchv n.b

keleuv ei toiv nun oJ nomoqevth", gunaiko;" ejgkuvmono" ajmblwsavsh"

ej n mav ch/, eij me; n ejxeikonismev non ejxevlqoi to; brev fo", toutevsti

memorfwmev non, fovnon to; pravgma kalei'sqai kai; th; n i[shn

uJpev cein timwrivan to; n dedrakovta: eij de; mh; ejxevlqoimemorfwmev non, mh; logivzesqai fov non, ejpeidhvper oujdevpw

yucwqe; n ejxhmblwvqh, ajlla; zhmivan tiv nein to; n ai[tion.

Dia; tiv to; n keratisth; n tau'ron aj nairei'sqai keleuv ei;a

Kai; dia; tw' n ajlovgwn paideuvwn tou;" logikou;" hJlivkon oJ

fov no" kakov n.


A [ ], B, C –5 1, = mss.

a. Ex .mmb. Gn .

A [ ], B, C –51, = mss.a. Ex .



What is the meaning of “with human features”?a

It is the general opinion that life is communicated to the fetus

when its body is fully formed in the womb. Thus, right after form-

ing Adam’s body, the Creator breathed life into him.b So, in the case

of a pregnant woman who suffers miscarriage in the course of a

fight, the lawgiver ordains that if the infant comes out with human

features—that is, fully formed—the case is to be considered murder,

and the guilty party must pay with his own life. But if it comes outbefore it is fully formed, the case is not to be considered murder,

since the miscarriage occurred before the animation of the child.

Nonetheless, the party responsible is to make recompense.

Why does he command the killing of a bull that gores?a

To use the brute beasts to teach rational people the enormity of

homicide.

Question



Dia; tiv oJ movscon keklofw;" pentaplavsia ejktiv nein

ejkeleuvsqh, oJ de; provbaton tetraplavsia;a

{ Oti ta; meivzona tw' n aJmarthmavtwn meizov nwn a[xia

timhmavtwn. ou{tw kai; oJ Kuvrio" ejdivdaxen: w | / mev n, gavr fhsi,

polu; doqhvsetai, polu; kai; ajpaithvsousi paræ aujtou'.b

Pw'" nohtevon to; qeou;" ouj kakologhvsei" ; a

Tou;" krita;" oj nomavzei qeouv", wJ" kata; mivmhsin tou' tw' n o{lwn

Qeou' kriv nein pepisteumev nou". tou'to safevsteron ejdivdaxen oJ

profhvth" Dabivd: eijpw; n gavr, oJ Qeo;" e[sth ejn sunagwgh' / qew' n,

ejn mevsw/ de; qeou;" diakrivnei, ejphvgagen, e{w" povte krivnete

ajdikivan kai; provswpa aJ martwlw' n lambavnete ;.......krivnate oj rfanw' / kai; ptwcw' /, tapeino;n kai; pevnhta dikaiwvsate. ejxevlesqe

pevnhta kai; ptwcovn, ejk ceiro;" aJ martwlou' rJuvsasqe aujtovn: ei\ta

kathgorw' n prostevqeiken, oujk e[gnwsan oujde; sunh' kan, ejn

skovtei diaporeuvontai:b ejpideivknusi de; kai; th; n oijkeivan

filotimivan: ejgwv, gavr fhsin, ei\ pon, qeoiv ejste kai; uiJoi; uJyivstou

pavnte". uJ mei' " de; wJ" a[nqrwpoi ajpoqnhv /skete kai; wJ" ei |" tw' n

aj rcovntwn pivptete:c ou{tw kai; ej ntau'qa, qeou;" ouj kakologhvsei"

kai; a[ rconta tou' laou' sou oujk ej rei' " kakw' ".


A [ ], B, C, = mss.

a. Ex .mmb. Lk .

A [ ], B, c, , = mss.

a. Ex .mmb. Ps .–mmc. Ps .f.



Why is the thief of a calf commanded to repay fivefold, but the

thief of a sheep fourfold?a

Because greater sins deserve greater penalties. The Lord himself

gave similar instructions: “Of the person to whom much will be giv-

en much will also be required.”b

How are we to understand the verse “You shall not revile gods”?a

By “gods” he meant judges, since they are commissioned to judge

in imitation of the God of the universe. The prophet David taught

the same thing more explicitly. After declaring, “God has taken his

place in an assembly of gods,” he went on, “How long will you deliv-

er unjust judgments and take the part of sinners? Judge in favor of orphan and poor; give justice to the lowly and needy. Rescue the

needy and poor; deliver him from the hands of the sinner.” Then by

way of accusation he added, “They did not know, nor did they un-

derstand; they walk in darkness.”b God also showed his own gen-

erosity with “I said, you are gods, and all of you children of the Most

High. But as men you die, and as one of the rulers you fall.”c Like-

wise here, too, “You shall not revile gods or malign a leader of your

people.”1

Question

. Had Theodoret been able to read the Hebrew, he would have seen that in Ex . the term ‘elohim (God) had been wrongly rendered in the plural by the LXX.Lacking this linguistic expertise, he sought clarification of the plural qeouv~ (gods)by reference to what he mistakenly imagined to be a parallel usage in Ps. , where

God is presented as presiding over the council of the gods of the nations. In hiscommentary on Ps. ., Theodoret had cited Ex . to show that both passagesdeal with judges.



Tiv no" e{ neken qhriavlwta kreva ejsqiv ein ajpagoreuv ei;a

Logikwtevran aujtou;" didavskei zwh; n kai; mhde; n e[ cein

qhriw'de" pareggua' /. ta; ga;r qhriva ouj quv ei provteron, ei\qæ ou{tw"

ejsqiv ei. dia; tou'to metæ ojlivga kai; tw' n ej cqrw' n ejpimelei'sqai

keleuv ei, kai; tou' dusmenw'" diakeimev nou to; n bou' n planwvmenon

mh; parora' n, ajllæ ejpistrev fein eij" th; n tou' dusmenou'" oijkivan,

kai; to; uJpozuvgion peptwko;" aj nista' n, kai; tai'" toiauvtai" euj ergesivai" ta;" katallaga;" mhcana'sqai.b didavskei de; dia;

touvtwn wJ" ei |" palaia'" kai; kainh'" diaqhvkh" nomoqevth", kai; oJ

tou'ton dedwkw;" to; n novmon kai; to; n eujaggeliko; n ejdwrhvsato.

Tiv ejstin oujk ojfqhvsh/ ejnwvpion Kurivou tou' Qeou' sou kenov" ; a

jApiw; n proskunh'sai tw' / despovth/ Qew' /, ta; dunatav soi

provsfere dw'ra. hJma'" de; oJ lovgo" didavskei eij me; n crhvmata

e[ coimen, meta; th'" tw' n penhvtwn qerapeiva" proseuv cesqai tw' /

Qew' /: eij de; to; n ajkthvmona proairouvmeqa bivon, mh; kenh; n e[ cein

tw' n ajgaqw' n th; n yuchv n, ajllæ e[ cousan to; n plou'ton th'" ajreth'".


A [ ], B, C, = mss.

a. Ex .mmb. Ex .f.

A [ ], B, C, = mss.

a. Ex . (LXX var.)



Why did he forbid them to eat the meat of beasts killed by wild

animals?a

To teach them a more rational life and urge them to eschew the

savagery of animals. Wild animals do not wait to offer their prey in

sacrifice before they eat it. Hence, a little later, he also commands

them to exert themselves on behalf of their enemies: not to ignore

their adversary’s ox when it is straying but to lead it back to the ad-

versary’s house, to raise up the ass that has fallen, and to effectreconciliation with this kind of good deeds.1b Now, in all these regu-

lations, he teaches that there is one Lawgiver of Old and New Testa-

ments, that he who gave the Law bestowed also the law of the

Gospels.

What is the meaning of “You shall not appear before the Lord

your God empty-handed”?a

When you go to worship the Lord God, offer gifts in accordance

with your means. This verse teaches us, if we have money, to pray to

God with the care of the needy, or, if we opt for a life of poverty, to

approach God with a soul that is not empty of good things but

wealthy in virtue.

Question

. Theodoret does not refer to the parallel passage Lv .–, which indicatesthe central concern of Ex ., i.e., that the life blood of the animal be offered toGod; v. R.J. Faley, on Lv .–. Instead, he applies a spiritual exegesis that permitshim to discover in this verse a general prescription of the civilized behavior de-

scribed in .f., which command considerate treatment of livestock belonging toone’s enemy. Thus, he can claim that the prohibition of Ex . evinces the mercy of the gospel law and is, therefore, indicative of the unity of the two Testaments.



Poiva ejsti; n eJorth; hJ tou' qerismou' tw' n prwtogenhmavtwn, kai;

poiva eJorth; th' " sunteleiva" ejpæ ejxovdw/ tou' ejniautou` ; a

ÔEorth;n tw' n prwtogenhmavtwn th; n Penthkosth; n kalei',

eJorth;n de; sunteleiva" ejpæ ejxovdw/ tou' ejniautou' th; n th'"

Skhnophgiva". kai; tou'to didavskwn, ejphvgage, trei' " kairou;" tou'

ejniautou' ojfqhvsetai pa' n aj rsenikovn sou ejnwvpion Kurivou tou'

Qeou' sou,b toutevsti th' / eJorth' / tou' Pavsca, kai; th' /

Penthkosth' /, kai; th' / Skhnophgiva/. aj namimnhvskei de; to; me; nPavsca th'" ejxovdou th'" ejx Aijguvptou kai; th'" parasceqeivsh"

ejleuqeriva", hJ de; Penthkosth; th'" eij" th; n gh' n th'" ejpaggeliva"

eijsovdou: ejkei' ga;r speivronte", ta;" ajparca;" tw' n genhmavtwn

prosev feron: ej n ga;r th' / ejrhvmw/ to; n a[sporon kai; aj nhvroton

h[sqion a[rton.c hJ de; Skhnophgiva th; n ej n ejrhvmw/ diagwgh; n

uJpograv fei: ej n skhnai'" ga;r oijkou' nte" tessaravkonta

dietevlesan e[th.d

ej n tauvtai" tai'" eJortai'" suntrev cein eij" to; nqei'on new; paregguv hsen i{ na kai; tw' n qeivwn aj namimnhvskwntai

dwrew' n, kai; eij" oJmov noian kai; filivan sunavptwntai, kaiv,

fileortastai; o[ nte", mh; peri; ta; temev nh tw' n daimov nwn

trufw'sin, ajllæ ej n tw' / naw' / tou' pepoihkovto" kai; ta; ajgaqa;

corhgou' nto" th'" eJortastikh'" ajpolauvwsin eujwciva".


A [ ], B*, C, * = mss.

a. Ex .mmb. Ex .mmc. Ex .–mmd. Cf. Nm ..



What were “the festival of the harvest of first-fruits” and “the fes-

tival of completion at the end of the year”?a

By “festival of the first-fruits” he referred to Pentecost and by

“festival of completion at the end of the year” to Tabernacles. In the

same provision, he added: “Three times in the year, all your males

shall appear before the Lord your God,”b namely, Passover, Pente-

cost, and Tabernacles. Passover recalls the exodus from Egypt and

the granting of freedom, Pentecost the entrance into the promisedland, where they sowed crops and made offerings of their first-

fruits, for, in the wilderness, they ate food that came without sowing

or tilling.c Tabernacles represents their time in the wilderness, where

they spent forty years living in tents.d He commanded them to re-

pair to the temple of God on these festivals so they would remember

the gifts they had received from him and unite in harmony and

friendship. Thus, being great lovers of festivals, they would not revelin the demons’ shrines but celebrate their holiday feasts in the tem-

ple of the God who had created them and blessed them with these

good things.

Question



Tiv ejstin ouj quvsei" ejpi; zuv mh/ ai | ma qusiavsmatov" mou ; a

jAzuvmou" a[rtou" tw' / qusiasthrivw/ prosev feron:b zumivta" de;

ajpagoreuv ei prosfevrein, dia; tw' n aijsqhtw' n didavskwn ta; nohtav.

ejpeidh; ga;r oJ a[zumo" a[rto" aujtoscevdiov" ejstin, oJ de; zumivth"

e[ cei ti th'" zuvmh" th'" palaia'",c ajpagoreuv ei oJ novmo" mhde; n

toi'" qeivoi" th'" aijguptiakh'" aj namignuv nai didaskaliva". ou{tw

kai; oJ Kuvrio" toi'" iJ eroi'" e[lege maqhtai'", prosev cete ajpo; th' " zuv mh" tw' n grammatevwn kai; farisaivwn.d

Pw'" nohtevon to; ouj c eJyhvsei" a[ rna ejn gavlakti mhtro;"

aujtou' ;a

Pollavki" e[ fhn o{ti dia; pav ntwn aujtou;" filanqrwpivan

didavskei. tine;" ou\ n fasin ajpagoreuv ein to; n novmon to;

eujqugene;" ejsqiv ein, tine;" de; tw' / mhtrwv /w/ gavlakti mh; suneyei' n:

trovpon gavr tina kai; th; n mhtevra suneyei': ajpagoreuv ei de; kai;

tw' / Qew' / prosfevrein kata; taujto; n mhtevra kai; to; tecqe; n ejx

aujth'". kai; aujtoi'" de; parekeleuvsato strouqw' n euJrhkovsi

neottivan mh; sunqhreuv ein toi'" neottoi'" th; n mhtevra: tou'to

gavr ejstin ejxalei' yai tw' n ojrnevwn to; gev no".b


A [ ], B, c, , = mss.

a. Ex .mmb. Lv .f.mmc. Cor .mmd. Mt .

A [ ], B, c, = mss.

a. Ex .mmb. Dt .f.



What is the meaning of “You shall not offer the blood of my sac-

rifice with leaven”?a

It was their practice to offer unleavened loaves on the altar,b and

he forbade the offering of leavened, thus conveying spiritual, by

means of material, realities. Since the unleavened is natural while

leavened bread contains some of the old leaven,c the Law forbade

the adulteration of the sacrificial offerings with anything derived

from Egyptian religion. Thus, the Lord himself warned his holy dis-

ciples: “Be on guard against the leaven of the scribes and Phar-

isees.”1d

How are we to understand the verse “You shall not boil a lamb in

its mother’s milk”?a

As I have often remarked, he employed every means to teach

them benevolence. Some commentators have claimed that this law

forbids the eating of a newborn creature, others the boiling of the

newborn in its mother’s milk, since this is, in a sense, to boil the

mother along with her lamb, and he thus forbade them to offer God

a mother and her offspring at the same time. He also enjoined that,

on finding a swallow’s nest, they were not to take the mother with

the chicks, since this would wipe out the whole stock of birds. 1b

Question

. On Theodoret’s version of this dominical saying v. note to Q. on Ex.

. The prohibition of Ex . is found also at . and Dt .. In all thesepassages the LXX offers “lamb” rather than the “kid” of the MT.



Pw'" nohtevon to;n aj riqmo;n tw' n hJ merw` n sou ajnaplhrwvsw; a

Th; n wJrismev nhn fhsi; toi'" aj nqrwvpoi" zwhv n, toutevstin eij"

gh'ra" makro; n ejlqei' n se paraskeuavsw.

Tiv ejstin ajpostelw' ta;" sfhkiva" protev ra" sou ; a

ÔW" toi'" aijguptivoi" batrav cou"b kai; skni'pa"c kai;

kunovmuiand e[pemyen, ou{tw toi'" cananaivoi" kai; toi'" a[lloi"

e[qnesi ta;" sfhkiva". tou'to de; dhloi' th; n uJperbavllousan

duv namin tou' Qeou': o{ti, kai; dia; tw' n smikrw' n zw/ ufivwn, kai; toi'"

oijkeivoi" ejpikourei' kai; toi'" ej nantivoi" ejpavgei to; n o[leqron.

tou'to kai; dia; tou' makarivou levgei Dabivd, ∆ Israh;l tai' " oJdoi' " mou eij ejporeuvqh, ejn tw' / mhdeni; a]n tou;" ej cqrou;" aujtw' n

ejtapeivnwsae aj nti; tou'∑ eujpetw'" a] n mavla kai; rJa/divw" tou;"

polemou' nta" aujtoi" ejxwlovqreusa.


A [ ], B, C –51, = mss.

a. Ex .

A [ ], B, C –51, = mss.

l. polemou` nta~ aujtoi~ J.P. : polemou` nta~ aujtou;~ Sir. Sch. F.M. = “I would have made short work of those who were making war .” In this context, onewould expect the pronoun to refer to those fought against, not those fighting;cf. Thdt., Ps. . (tou;~ polemou` nta~ aujtw/ ) and Ezech. .f. (∆Assurivwn kai;

Caldaivwn polemouv ntwn aujtoi~). It is just possible that Thdt. here joinspolemevw to an accusative direct object rather than a dative complement, andSir. and Sch. print aujtou;~ polemou` nta~ (= fighting against them) in hiscomment on Mi .– (PG, vol. , col. A). Yet this seems dubious, since

elsewhere Thdt. restricts polemevw + acc. pronouns to forms of ejgwv and suv.

a. Ex .mmb. Ex .mmc. Ex .mmd. Ex .mme. Ps .f.



How are we to understand, “I shall fill out the number of your

days”?a

He means the span of life set for human beings, in other words:

“I shall cause you to live to a great old age.”

What is the meaning of “I shall send wasps before you”? 1a

As he had sent frogs,b gnats,c and dog fliesd on the Egyptians, so

he sent wasps on the Canaanites and the other nations. This indi-

cates the surpassing power of God: that even with such tiny crea-

tures he lends assistance to his own and brings ruin on their adver-

saries. As he declared through the blessed David, “If Israel had

travelled in my ways, I would have brought their foes down with amere nothing,”e that is: “I would have made short work of those

who warred against them.”

Question

. It is, in fact, the LXX that offers “wasp” (sfhkiva) for the obscure Hebrew term rendered as “pestilence” or “hornets” in the NRSV.



Pw'" ejpaggeilavmeno" oJ Qeo;" mev cri tou' ∆Eufravtou potamou'

paradwvsein aujtoi'" th; n gh' n,a oujk ejplhvrwse th; n uJpovscesin;

Dia; ÔIeremivou tou' profhvtou tou'to safevsteron pepoiv hken oJ

Qeov": pev ra", gavr fhsi, lalhvsw ejpi; e[qno" kai;....... basileivan

tou' oijkodomei' n kai;.......katafuteuvein:b kai; e[stai ejavn, strafe;n

to; e[qno" ejkei' no poihvsh/ ponhrav, ouj mh; ejpagavgw ejpæ aujtw' /

pavnta ta; ajgaqa; o{sa ejlavlhsa, kai; ta; eJxh'".c eijshvgage toiv nun

aujtou;" oJ Qeo;" eij" h} n ejphggeivlato gh' n. ejpeidh; de; fulavxaito; n qei'on oujk hjboulhvqhsan novmon, ouj pa'san aujtoi'" parevdwken

ajllæ ei[asev tina" dihnekw'" aujtoi'" polemou' nta" i{ na

polemouvmenoi th; n qeivan aijtw'si bohvqeian, kai; tou'to

diaferov ntw" hJ tw' n kritw' n iJstoriva didavskei. Dabi;d mev ntoi tw' /

basilei' kai; touvtou" uJpevtaxe: kai; ga;r oiJ ajllov fuloi fovrou"

ejdivdosan,d kai; Suriva Damaskou', kai; Suriva Souba'.e kai; Solomw' n

dev, e{w" hujsevbei, tauvthn ei\ ce th; n dunasteivan: ajpokliv na" de; eij" ajsevbeian, th'" ejxousiva" ejxevpese.f kai; touvtoi" de; dwvsein

ejphggeivlato ta;" ej ntola;" kai; to; n novmon fulavttousin.

Th; n skhnh; n tiv dhv pote prosevtaxen oJ Qeo;" genevsqai;

() Aujto;" oJ despovth" Qeo;" th; n aijtivan dedhvlwken: e[ fh de;

ou{tw: kai; poihvsei" moi aJgivasma, kai; ojqfhvsomai ejn uJ mi' n. kai;

poihvsei" kata; pavnta o{sa ejgw; deivknumiv soi ejn tw' / o[ rei, to;


A [ ], B, C –51, = mss.

a. Ex .mmb. Jer .mmc. Cf. Jer ..mmd. Sm .mme. Sm .mmf. Kgs .–

A [ ], B, C –51, = mss.



How is it that, after promising to give them the land as far as the

Euphrates River,a God failed to fulfil his promise?

God made this clearer through the prophet Jeremiah: “I shall de-

clare a decision for a nation or kingdom, to build and plant;b and if

that nation turn to do evil, I shall not bring upon it all the good

things I said,” and so on.1c So God brought them into the promised

land, but, since they refused to keep his Law, he did not give them all

the land but permitted other peoples to wage constant war on them,so that, when under attack, they would beg for his help. It is particu-

larly the biblical book of Judges that teaches us this. Nonetheless, he

subjected these peoples to King David. The Philistines paid tributed

along with Syria of Damascus and Syria of Zobah,e and Solomon

held this empire as long as he lived a pious life. But when he slipped

into idolatry, he lost his power.f God’s promise of this gift was con-

tingent upon their observance of the commandments and the Law.

Why did God command the construction of the tabernacle? 1

() The Lord God explained the reason himself when he de-

clared: “You shall make me a sanctuary, and I shall appear among

you. You shall make it according to all the details I show you on the

mountain, according to the model of the tabernacle and the model

Question

. The word pevra~, here rendered “decision,” very frequently means “limit” or

“boundary”; v. LSJ, sub uoce, I.

. Theodoret has so much to say on the tabernacle, its design and furnishings,



paravdeigma th' " skhnh' " kai; to; paravdeigma tw' n skeuw' n aujth' ".a

ejpeidh; ga;r ej n tw' / Sina' o[rei to; n novmon ejdedwvkei, eijko;" de; h\ n

tina" uJpotoph'sai perigegrav fqai to; qei'on, ejkevleuse genevsqai

skhnh; n i{ næ, ejkei'qen th; n oijkeivan poiouvmeno" ejpifav neian, ejkpaideuv h/ to; n lao; n th; n eujsevbeian. w{sper gavr, th; n

ejphggelmev nhn aujtw' n ajpeilhfovtwn gh' n, new; n genevsqai

prosevtaxeb kai; ta;" qeiva" ejkei' giv nesqai leitourgiva"

ej nomoqevthsen i{ na mhv, ajdew'" tou'to drw' nte", th' / tw' n ajlithrivwn

daimov nwn peripevswsi plav nh/, ou{tw" oJdoiporou'si kai; th; n

e[rhmon diabaiv nousi skhnh; n poih'sai prosevtaxe, metabh' nai kai;

aujth; n dunamev nhn, i{ na kai; ta;" proseuca;" kai; ta;" iJ erourgiva" ej n tauvth/ prosfevrwsi. kai; tau'ta de; th'" aujtw' n e{ neka

gegev nhtai creiva". ejpeidh; gavr, ej n tw' / o[rei tou' megavlou

Mwu>sevw" pleivou" diatriv yanto" hJmevra",c pro;" to; n ∆Aarw; n

e[ fasan, poivhson hJ mi' n qeouv", oi} proporeuvsontai hJ mw' n,d kaiv,

th; n eijkov na tou' movscou kataskeuavsante", ejbovwn coreuvonte",

ou |toi oiJ qeoiv sou, ∆Israhvl, oiJ ejxagagovnte" se ejk gh' "

Aijguvptou,e th; n skhnh; n tauvthn genevsqai prosevtaxen oJ Qeo;"

kai; ajpairov ntwn hJgei'sqai nenomoqevthke kai; aujlizomev nwn

i{stasqai w{ste kai; tou;" iJ ereva" ej n aujth' / ta;" qusiva" ejpitelei' n.

() Ei\ ce de; aujth; th'" ktivsew" th; n eijkov na. w{sper ga;r to; n

oujrano; n kai; th; n gh' n dhmiourghvsa", oJ despovth" Qeo;" mevson

pavlin ejxevteine to; sterevwma kai; diwvrise ta; uJperw' /a tw' n kavtw,f

ou{tw mivan me; n genevsqai prosevtaxe th; n skhnhv n, triavkonta me; n

phv cewn to; mh'ko" devka de; to; eu\ro" e[ cousan, ej n mevsw/ de; to;


a. Ex .f.mmb. Sm .; Kgs .mmc. Ex .mmd. Ex .mme. Ex .mmf. Gn .mm



of all its furnishings.”a You see, since he had given the Law on Mount

Sinai, and there were probably those who had come to imagine that

the divine nature was circumscribed, he ordered the construction of

the tabernacle in which to reveal himself and instruct his people inright religion. When they had taken possession of the promised

land, he commanded the building of the templeb and prescribed the

performance of the divine service there so that they would not fall

victim to the deception of sinful demons by failing to worship with

due reverence. Likewise, he bade them construct a tabernacle that

could be moved when they were travelling across the desert so that

they could offer prayers and worship in it. This was meant to meettheir needs: After Moses, that great man, had spent many days on

the mountain,c they said to Aaron, “Make us gods to go before us,”d

and they made an image of the calf, danced, and cried out, “These

are your gods, Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt,” e so

God commanded the construction of this tabernacle and prescribed

that it go before them when they were on the move and stop when

they made camp so that the priests might perform the sacrifices in

it.

() The tabernacle was a representation of creation.2 When he

created heaven and earth, the Lord God stretched a firmament in

the midst and separated things above from things below.f Just so, he

ordered the building of one tabernacle, thirty cubits long and ten

Question

and the accoutrements of the priests, that it looks as if he used this question as anopportunity to produce an essay on the religious institutions of the Jews. It is puz-zling that he should devote so much attention to Ex –, since he makes so littleeffort to find in the various elements of the description reference to Christ orChristian liturgy. While he makes two quick allusions to their use in Hebrews

and , and two further typological comments meant to highlight the superiority of Christian to Jewish worship, he does not touch on the christological significance of the mercy seat, to which he had devoted a beautiful development in his commenton Rom .; cf. his treatment of the manna in Qq. –, where he never once

mentions Christ or the Eucharist.. In his discussion of chh. –, Theodoret may have drawn on Theodore of

Mopsuestia’s treatment of the topic, fragments of which have been preserved in



katapevtasma diateiv na", ej n tuvpw/ tou' sterewvmato" dich' /

diei'len aujthv n, kai; to; me; n para; th; n quvran mevro" ejkavlesen

a{gia, to; de; tou' katapetavsmato" e[ ndon a{gia aJgivwn wj novmase.g

kai; w{sper levgei Dabivd, oJ ouj rano;" tou' ouj ranou' tw' / Kurivw/, th;n de; gh' n e[dwke toi' " uiJoi' " tw' n ajnqrwvpwn,h ou{tw" e[xw me; n tou'

katapetavsmato" eijsithto;" h\ n toi'" iJ ereu'si, ta; de; e[ ndon

a[ yausta h\ n kai; a[duta kai; aj navktora: to; n ajrciereva ga;r mov non

a{pax tou' e[tou" novmo" h\ n eijsiev nai.i h\ n de; ejkei' ta; tw' n

ceroubi;m eijkavsmata, j tuvpon tw' n ajswmavtwn dunavmewn e[ conta:

ej n mevsw/ de; touvtwn hJ kibwto;" e[keito, ta;" plavka" e[ cousa tou'

novmou,k

kai; th; n stavmnon tou' mav nna, kai; th; n rJavbdon ∆Aarw; nth; n blasthvsasan.l ejpevkeito de; tauvth/ to; iJlasthvrion, tai'"

ptevruxi tw' n ceroubi;m skiazovmenon:m ej n touvtw/ de; oJ tw' n o{lwn

Qeo;" th; n oijkeivan ejpifav neian ejpoiei'to. ejpeidh; ga;r hJ qeiva

fuvsi" aj neivdeov" te kai; ajschmavtisto" ajovratov" te kai;

ajperivlhpto", kai; th'" toiauvth" oujsiva" eijkov na tekthv nasqai

pantavpasi tw' n ajdunavtwn, ta; suvmbola tw' n megivstwn aujtou'

dwrew' n e[ ndon kei'sqai prosevtaxen. aiJ me; n ga;r plavke" th; n

nomoqesivan ejdhvloun, th; n de; iJ erwsuv nhn hJ rJavbdo", to; de; mav nna

th; n ej n ejrhvmw/ trofh; n kai; to; n aj ceiropoiv hton a[rton: to; dev ge

iJlasthvrion th'" profhteiva" suvmbolon h\ n: ejkei'qen ga;r aiJ

prorrhvsei" ejgiv nonto.n w{sper ga;r ejk megevqou" kai; kallonh' "

ktismavtwn ajnalovgw" oJ genesiourgo;" aujtw' n qewrei' tai,o ou{tw

dia; touvtwn oJ megalovdwro" ejgnwrivzeto.

() Ta; me; n ou\ n e[ ndon th'" skhnh'" tw' n ejpouranivwn ei\ ce to; n

tuvpon: dio; kai; a{gia tw' n aJgivwn wj novmasto. kai; o{ti tou'to


l. katapevtasma , C –51, , Sir. Sch. : parapevtasma Pic. (Sch.) F.M.In the twenty-nine other places where Thdt. uses katapevtasma, it always refersto the veil of the temple. In the nine other places where Thdt. usesparapevtasma, it is associated with the katapevtasma of the temple only inone passage of the Eran. (Dial. , p. ).

l. katapetavsmato~ a [ ] , C –51, , Sir. Sch. : parapetavsmato~ F.M.

g. Ex

.

mmh. Ps

.

mmi. Lv

.

mm j. Ex

.

–

mmk. Ex

.

;

Kgs

.

l. Ex .–; Nm .f.; Heb .mmm. Ex .mmn. V., e.g., Jgs .–mmo. Wis .mm



cubits wide, and in the middle he stretched the veil, which, as an im-

age of the firmament, divided the tent in two. He called the part by

the door “the holy place” and named the part behind the veil “the

Holy of Holies.”g As David declares, “The heaven of heaven is theLord’s, but the earth he has given to the sons of men.”h Thus, the

priests were permitted to enter the area outside the veil, but the area

inside was inviolable, inaccessible, and sacred. By law the high priest

alone entered just once a year.i Inside were the likenesses of the

cherubim j presenting an image of incorporeal powers; between the

cherubim was placed the ark containing the tablets of the Law,k the

jar of manna, and Aaron’s sprouting rod.l

The mercy seat was placedon top of the ark, overshadowed by the wings of the cherubim,m and

on it the God of the universe revealed himself. Since the divine na-

ture is without form or shape, invisible, and incomprehensible, and

it is utterly impossible to devise an image of such a being, he com-

manded symbols of his greatest gifts be placed there: the tablets rep-

resenting the giving of the Law, the rod the priesthood, the manna

the nourishment in the wilderness and the bread not made by hu-

man hands. The mercy seat was a symbol of prophecy, since predic-

tions were made there.n Just as “the Creator is to some extent dis-

cerned from the magnitude and beauty of the creation,”o so the

generous giver was made known in these gifts.3

() The area inside the tabernacle presented an image of heaven

and hence was called the “Holy of Holies.” The inspired apostle tes-

Question

the catena Nikephori; v. note to Q. . Theodore, for example, had argued that thetabernacle represented creation; v. Devreesse, pp. f.

. Theodoret rarely cites the Wisdom of Solomon; cf. his comment on Ps .f.LXX (.f. MT).



ajlhqe;" mavrtu" oJ qei'o" ajpovstolo", ouJtwsi; levgwn: ouj ga; r eij"

ceiropoivhta a{gia eijsh' lqen oJ Cristov", ajntivtupa tw' n ajlhqinw' n,

ajllæ eij" aujto;n to;n ouj rano;n nu' n ej mfanisqh' nai tw' / proswvpw/ tou'

Qeou' uJpe; r hJ mw' n:p kai; pavlin peri; th'" qeiva" ejlpivdo"dialegovmeno", kai; tau'ta prostevqeiken: h}n wJ" a[gkuran

e[ comen .......ajsfalh' , te kai; bebaivan, kai; eijsercomevnhn eij" to;

ejswvteron tou' katapetavsmato", o{pou provdromo" uJpe; r hJ mw' n

eijsh' lqen ∆Ihsou' ", genov meno" aj rciereu;" kata; th;n tavxin

Melcisedevk.q

Oujkou' n ta; me; n e[ ndon tou' katapetavsmato" th; n tw' n

ejpouranivwn ei\ cen eijkov na, ta; de; ejkto;" tw' n ejpigeivwn: dio; kai;toi'" iJ ereu'si dihnekw'" h\ n batav. ei\ ce de; tau'ta lucnivan me; n ej n

tw' / notivw/ mevrei keimev nhn eJptavkaulon,r ijsarivqmou" e[ cousan

luv cnou" ejpikeimev nou":s ejdhvloun de; ou |toi tw' n hJmerw n th'"

eJbdomavdo" to; n ajriqmov n: travpezan de; ej n tw' / boreivw/ crush' n,t ej fæ

h |" a[rtou" prokei'sqai prosevtaxe duokaivdeka kai; fiavla"

crusa'" plhvrei" libanwtou' kai; aJlw' n.u ej n de; tw' / mevsw/ th'" te

lucniva" kai; th'" trapevzh" crusou' n e[keito qumiathvrion.v tau'ta

de; h\ n aij nivgmata tw' n ajpo; gh'" toi'" aj nqrwvpoi" dedwrhmev nwn

karpw' n. pro; de; th'" skhnh'" e[xw to; calkou' n h\ n qusiasthvrion,

to; ta; prosferovmena decovmenon quvmata.w dhloi' de; tou'to

peritta; ei\ nai tau'ta kai; mh; ajresta; tw' / tw' n o{lwn Qew' /. o{qen

ejpitelei'sqai me; n aujta; sunecwvrhse dia; th; n ijoudaivwn

ajsqev neian, e[xw de; th'" skhnh'" iJ erourgei'sqai prosevtaxen, wJ"

toi'" e[ ndon oujk aj nagkai'a. hJmei'" de; th; n toi'" e[ ndon

ajponemhqei'san leitourgivan ejpitelou'men: qumivama gavr, kai;lucniai'on fw'" prosfevromen tw' / Qew' /, kai; th; n mustikh; n th'"

aJgiva" trapevzh" iJ erourgivan.

() { Oti de; triavkonta phv cewn h\ n to; mh'ko" th'" skhnh'", kai;

devka to; eu\ro" katamaqei' n eujpetev": ei[kosi ga;r sanivda" ei\ ce

to; novtion mevro",x kai; tosauvta" to; bovreion: y sanivda" ga;r tou;"

stuvlou" wj novmasan oiJ a[lloi eJrmhneutaiv: eJkavsth" de; sanivdo"


p. Heb .mmq. Heb .f. mmr. Ex .mms. Ex .mmt. Ex .mmu. Ex .f.mmv. Ex .mmw. Ex .–mmx. Ex .mm y. Ex .mm



tifies to the truth of this when he says, “Christ did not enter a sanc-

tuary made by human hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into

heaven itself, and so he has now appeared in the presence of God on

our behalf”;p and again in speaking of hope in God he added, “Wehave this sure and steadfast anchor, a hope that enters behind the

curtain, where, on our behalf, entered the forerunner, Jesus, who be-

came a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.”q

So, what was inside the curtain presented an image of heavenly

realities and what was outside of earthly, and hence the latter wasconstantly accessible to the priests. The area outside the curtain

contained a seven-stemmed lampstand.r Situated on the south side,

it bore seven lampss indicative of the number of days of the week.4

On the north side there was a golden table,t on which he command-

ed to be set out twelve loaves as well as golden bowls full of incense

and salt.u In between the lampstand and the table was a golden in-

cense altar.v These things were suggestive of the produce of the earth

granted to mankind. Outside, in front of the tabernacle, there was

an altar of bronze for the offering of sacrifice.w This suggests that

these sacrifices were futile, not acceptable to the God of the uni-

verse; he allowed the performance of these rites as a concession to

the limitations of the Jews but ordered them to be celebrated out-

side the tabernacle, as they were not essential for what was within.

We, on the other hand, celebrate a liturgy corresponding to what is

within, when we offer God incense, the light of lamps, and the eu-charistic liturgy of the holy table.5

() Now, we can easily reckon the length of the tabernacle as thir-

ty cubits and the width as ten. The south side had twenty planks, x

and the north likewise. y “Planks” is the term the other translators

Question

. Neither here nor in his comment on Zec

.

does Theodoret explain that thenumber seven symbolizes completeness; v. J.L. McKenzie, “Seven,” p. .. Here is a rare remark of a sacramental nature. Contrasting the offerings of



ph' cun ej couvsh" kai; h{misu phv cew", triavkonta phv cei" aiJ ei[kosi

sanivde" ejplhvroun.z ou{tw pavlin to; pro;" dusma;" ajpoblevpon e}x

ei\ ce sanivda" to; aujto; mevtron ej couvsa", kai; duvo gwnivai".

dwvdeka ou\ n phv cei" ejk touvtwn sunagovmenoi, oiJ me; n devka to; e[ ndon eu\ro" ejplhvroun, oiJ de; a[lloi duvo tw' n eJkatevrwqen

pleurw' n ta;" aJrmoniva" ejdev conto.aa ejk mev ntoi tou' eJwv /ou mevrou"

th; n quvran genevsqai prosevtaxen i{ na, kai; aujto;" aj nivscwn, oJ

h{lio" oi |ov n tina proskuv nhsin prosfevrh/ toi'" propulaivoi",

eujqu;" ejkei'se ta;" ajkti' na" ejkpevmpwn, kai; oiJ tw' / qew' / mov nw/

latreuv ein prostetagmev noibb o[pisqen to; n h{lion e[ cwsi, pro;"

th; n skhnh; n tetrammev noi kaiv, mh; tou'ton, ajlla; to; n touvtoupoihth; n proskunw'si. drufavktw/ toiv nun hJ skhnh; prosewv /kei,

sanivda" e[ cousa pav ntoqen sunhrmosmev na" ajllhvlai". ei\ con de;

kai; ta;" bavsei" ajrgura'" kai; ta;" kefalivda" wJsauvtw",cc kai;

aujtai; de; kai; e[ ndoqen kai; e[xwqen h\san hjleimmev nai crusw' /.dd to; n

de; o[rofon ei\ cen ejx uJ fasmavtwn poikivlwn ejk diafovrwn

kateskeuasmev nwn crwmavtwn. to; me; n ga;r h\ n aJlourgov n, to; de;

rJodoeide;" h] kokkobafev", to; de; uJakiv nqw/ proseoikov":ee hJ de;

buvsso" th; n leukh; n ei\ ce croiav n. kai; tau'ta de; tw' n tessavrwn

h\ n stoiceivwn aij nivgmata: oJ me; n ga;r uJavkinqo" tw' / aj evri

prosevoike, to; de; rJodoeide;" h] kokkobafe;" tw' / puriv, to; de;

aJlourgo; n mhnuv ei th; n qavlattan: ejkeiv nh ga;r trev fei th; n kov clon,

ejx h|" to; toiou'ton giv netai crw'ma: hJ de; buvsso" th; n gh' n: ejk

tauvth" ga;r fuv esqai levgetai. kai; devrrei" de; ei\ ce triciv na"

ejpikeimev na" kai; mev ntoi kai; difqevra" poikivla" w{ste kai; to; n

uJ eto; n ajpeivrgein kai; to; n flogmov n.ff


ll. f. th; n kov clon ejx h |~ a [ ], , c –15 , : to; n kov clon ejx ou | , ,Sir. Sch. : to; n kov clon ejx h |~ F.M. The feminine article is required by thefollowing relative pronoun; for the use of kov clo~ in the feminine gender, cf.Bas., Hex. .; Hom. in diuites , and Gr. Nyss., Placill., p. , l. . While to; nkov clon ejx ou |, though grammatically correct, would be the easier reading, thecombination of the masculine antecedent with the feminine relative pronounwould be a solecism difficult to attribute to Thdt.

z. Ex .mmaa. Ex .f.mmbb. Ex .–mmcc. Ex .mmdd. Ex .mmee. Ex .mmff. Ex ., mm



used in place of “pillars.” 6 Given that each plank was a cubit and a

half wide, the twenty planks made up thirty cubits.z Similarly, the

side facing west had six planks of the same dimensions and two on

the corners, so of the twelve cubits that these amount to, ten was thebreadth inside, and the remaining two were devoted to the joins

from either side.aa He commanded the door be set on the eastern

side so that the sun might, so to speak, itself offer adoration by di-

recting its rays to the vestibule at the moment of its rising, while

those ordered to serve God alonebb would be turned towards the

tabernacle and have the sun at their backs and thus adore, not the

sun, but its maker. So the tabernacle was like a railing, with plankson all sides fitted to one another. These also had silver bases and sil-

ver capitalscc and were gilded on both sides.dd They had a ceiling

made of various woven fabrics of a number of colors: purple,

roseate or scarlet, and a bluish color.ee The linen was white. These

were suggestive of the four elements. The blue resembled sky, the

roseate or scarlet fire; the purple recalled the sea, which nourishes

the shellfish from which that color is produced, and the linen earth,

from which it is said to grow. In addition, it was covered by hairy

skins as well as tanned skins of various colors that kept off the rain

and intense heat.ff

Question

the lampstand, showbread, and incense, which were made inside the tabernacle, tothe animal sacrifices that took place outside, Theodoret draws a typological con-nection between the former and the Christian liturgy in order to highlight the su-periority of the Christian Eucharist to the bloody sacrifices of the ancient He-brews. Note that, earlier in his reply, he had spoken carelessly of the priests offeringsacrifices within the tabernacle (w{ste kai; tou;~ iJ ereva~ ej n aujth/ ` ta;~ qusiva~

ejpitelei n).. The apparatus criticus to Ex . in the Göttingen Septuagint (v. J.W. Weversand U. Quast) confirms Theodoret’s report.



() Kai; toi'" iJ ereu'si de; pantodapo; n peritevqeike kovsmon,

to; n me; n lao; n kataplhvttonta tw' / diafovrw/ tou' schvmato",

aujtou;" de; tou;" iJ ereva" didavskonta o{pw" crh; th; n yuch; n

wJraiv >zein kai; to; n th'" ajreth'" aujth' / kovsmon peritiqev nai.uJpoduvthn de; kalei' to; n ej ndovteron citwnivskon, ejpenduvthn de;

to; n citw' na to; n e[xwqen. uJakiv nqinon de; tou'ton genevsqai

prosevtaxe kai; podhv rh proshgovreusen, wJ" mev cri" a[krwn

dihvkonta tw' n podw' n.gg ajphvrthse de; touvtou kai; kwvdwna"

crusou'" kai; rJoiv >skou" i{ na, eij" to; a[duton kai; aj navktoron th'"

skhnh'" eijsiw; n kai; th; n ejk touvtwn ajpoteloumev nhn hj ch; n

eijsdecovmeno", meta; devou" th; n leitourgivan ejpitelh' /, eij"mnhvmhn lambav nwn to; n tau'ta prostetacovta kai; th; n

prosferomev nhn iJ erourgivan decovmenon.hh diav toi tou'to kai; tou'

aj evro" oJ podhvrh" ei\ ce to; crw'ma: uJakiv nqino" ga;r h\ n wJ" a[ n, kai;

eij" tou'ton aj forw' n, metavrsio" gev nhtai. ejpevkeito de; th' /

kefalh' / kivdari", to; n oujrano; n mimoumev nh.ii ejkavlupte de; kai;

tainiva to; mevtwpon, h} n mivtran ei\pon oiJ eJbdomhvkonta. ei\ ce de;

ej n mevsw/ pevtalon au{th crusou' n, ejggegrammev non e[ con tou'

Qeou' to; a[ fraston o[ noma, o} kalou'sin eJbrai'oi tetravgrammon. jj

eujlavbeian de; to; n lao; n ejkpaideuvwn, oJ despovth" Qeo;" diæ

aij nivgmato" tou'to dedhvlwken: ejpigrav yei" ga;r aujtw' /, fhsiv n,

aJgivasma Kurivou.kk ejkevleuse de; aujtw' / kai; ej festrivda genevsqai,

h} n oiJ eJbdomhvkonta ejpwmivda ejkavlesan,ll ej n de; tai'" basileivai"

euJrivskomen ejfou;d aujth; n kata; th; n tw' n eJbraivwn glw'ttan

wj nomasmev nhn.mm au{th ei\ cen ej fæ eJkatevrou me; n w[mou duvo livqou"

polutelei'" e[ conta" tw' n fulw' n ta;" proshgoriva" ejggegrammev na",nn ej n de; tw' / sthvqei to; kalouvmenon lovgion th; n

logikh; n sugkaluvpton kardivan. ei\ ce de; kai; tou'to duokaivdeka

livqou" proshrmosmev nou" diav foron e[ conta" croiav n:oo dia; de;

touvtwn ejdhlou'to, polevmou sugkrothqev nto", h] nivkh h] h |tta. kai;

tou'to tw' n basileiw' n hJ iJstoriva didavskei: ejpistrateusav ntwn


gg. Ex ., mmhh. Ex .–mmii. Ex ., mm jj. Ex .–mmkk. Ex .mmll. Ex .–mmmm. Sm .; .; .mmnn. Ex .–mmoo. Ex .–mm



() He also clad the priests in the most comely attire to impress

the people with their extraordinary appearance and teach the priests

how to beautify the soul and bedeck it with the adornment of

virtue. By “undergarment” he referred to the inner, and by “outergarment” to the outer, tunic. He commanded the latter be blue in

color and called it “full length,” because it reached to the top of the

feet.gg To this he attached golden bells and pomegranates so that, on

entering the unapproachable precincts and hearing the sound issu-

ing from these, Aaron might celebrate the rite with reverence and

call to mind him who had commanded these things and who was to

receive the worship being offered.hh

The outer garment had the col-or of the sky, blue, so that when he looked upon it, he might be ele-

vated above this world. On his head was a turban in imitation of the

sky.ii His forehead was covered by a headband, which the Seventy

called a “head-dress”; in the middle it had a golden plate inscribed

with the name of God that is not pronounced, which the Hebrews

call “the Tetragrammaton.” 7jj This was to teach the people reverence

as the Lord God revealed in riddling manner: “You shall inscribe on

it ‘the holiness of the Lord.’”kk He also commanded there be made

for Aaron an upper garment, which the Seventy called “the shoulder

cape”ll though in First Samuel8 we find it given the Hebrew name

“ephod.”9mm It had two precious stones, one on each shoulder, in-

scribed with the names of the tribesnn and on the breast, what was

called the “declaration” covering the heart, the seat of reason. This

had fitted to it twelve stones of different colors,oo by means of

which, as we learn from First Samuel, the issue of victory or defeat

Question

. Cf. Q. .. In the LXX, the books of Samuel and Kings are enumerated as the four

books of “The Reigns” (aiJ basileiai).

. The ephod, a close-fitting waistcoat with shoulder straps, is referred to by theLXX as ejpwmiv" in Ex, but as ej fouvd / ej fwvd in Sm; v. the apparatus of ancientsources.



ga;r tw' n ajllofuvlwn tw' / ∆Israhvl, ouj provteron ejtovlmhsen oJ

Saou;l paratavxasqai e{w" ei\de ta; th'" nivkh" mhnuvmata:

prosavgage, gavr fhsi, to; ejfouvd:pp ei\ta th; n nivkhn maqwv n,

ejphvgage, sunavgage to; ejfou;d qq kai; ou{tw" ejxwvplise to; n laov n.dia; tou'to eijrhkw;" oJ tw' n o{lwn Qeov", kai; ejpiqhvsei" to; lovgion

th'" krivsew" ejpi; to; sth'qo" ∆Aarw; n kai; sunavyei" aujto;.......pro;"

th;n ejpwmivda,rr ejphvgage, kai; ejpiqhvsei" aujtw' Û.......th;n dhvlwsin

kai; th;n ajlhvqeian.ss kai; dhvlwsin me; n ejkavlese ta; ejkei'qen

mhnuvmata, ajlhvqeian de; tw' n mhnumavtwn to; aj yeudev".

() ∆Istevon mev ntoi, wJ" pacutevroi" ou\si toi'" thnikau'ta kai;tw' n nohtw' n ej fivkesqai mh; dunamev noi", dia; tw' n swmatikw' n

sumbovlwn th; n wj fevleian oJ pav nsofo" despovth" ejpragmateuv eto.

hJmei'" de; noou'men dia; me; n tou' logivou th; n qewrivan tw' n nohtw' n,

dia; de; th'" ejpwmivdo" th; n ejrgasivan th'" ajreth'", kai; th; n tou'

logivou kai; th'" ejpwmivdo" aJrmonivan te kai; sunav feian eij" th; n

th'" pivstew" kai; th'" ajgaqh'" pravxew" lambav nomen sumfwnivan:

to; de; prwvthn ejpitivqesqai th; n ejpwmivda, ei\qæ ou{tw tauvth/ to;

lovgion sunavptesqai to; th; n ajgaqh; n pra'xin uJpobavqran ei\ nai

th'" qewriva".


pp. Sm . mmqq. Sm . (LXX var.)mmrr. Ex . (LXX var.)mmss. Ex .mm



was revealed in the waging of war. When the Philistines were attack-

ing Israel, Saul did not dare engage them until he saw the tokens of

victory: “Bring forward the ephod,”pp he said. On learning that he

would be victorious, he proceeded, “Withdraw the ephod”qq andthen called the people to arms. Hence, after saying, “You shall put

the declaration of judgment on the breast of Aaron and attach it to

the shoulder cape,”rr the God of the universe proceeded, “and you

shall put on it ‘the demonstration’ and ‘the truth,’”ss by “demonstra-

tion” meaning the tokens it contained, and by “truth” the reliability

of those tokens.10

() Now, you should realize that, since the people of that timewere quite materialistic and incapable of attaining to spiritual reali-

ties, the Lord, in his great wisdom, devised a way of helping them

through physical symbols.11 We, on the contrary, understand by the

declaration contemplation of the intelligible, and by the shoulder

cape the practice of virtue. We take the close fit of the declaration

and the shoulder cape as the harmony of faith and virtuous behav-

ior and understand the prior donning of the shoulder cape and the

subsequent clasping to it of the declaration to signify that virtuous

behavior is the foundation of contemplation.

Question

. Theodoret tries to clarify the description of the ephod in Ex by referenceto Sm .f., where the LXX twice reads “ephod” but the MT “ark.” He under-stands those verses to indicate that Saul employed the ephod as an oracle to deter-mine whether the ensuing encounter with the Philistines would lead to his victory or defeat. This is also the interpretation of the Greek offered by H.W. Hertzberg(on Sm .–), who, however, warns against too easy acceptance of the widely held belief that the LXX here offers a text closer to the original Hebrew than theMT. For the breastpiece of judgment worn by Aaron, with its Urim and Thummim(rendered in Greek as dhvlwsin = demonstration and ajlhvqeian = truth; v. Ex . LXX), and displayed at important moments of judgment, the LXX uses theterm logei'on, represented in the text of Theodoret by the closely related form lov-gion. Due to the stem it shares with lovgo~, “reason” or “word,” logei'on is ren-dered rationale in the Vulgate, but the context of Exodus indicates that the “decla-ration” was actually an oracle, which is the meaning ordinarily borne by Theodoret’s lovgion; v. LSJ, ad voc.

. In his “Quotations of Theodoret’s De sancta et vivifica Trinitate ,” part of hisproject of detecting Theodoret’s influence in the work of later authors, I. Pásztori-Kupán points out (pp. f.) that this sentence appears in the Catena on Luke com-posed by Nicetas of Heracleia.



Dia; tiv oiJ iJ erei'", toi'" iJ ereivoi" ta;" cei'ra" ejpitiqev nte",

ou{tw" iJ evreuon;a

Ouj pa'si toi'" iJ ereivoi", ajlla; toi'" uJpe;r aujtw' n

prosferomev noi" kai; mavlista toi'" uJpe;r aJmartiva". toi'" de;

a[lloi" aujtoi; ta;" cei'ra" ejpetivqesan oiJ prosfevronte". h\ n de;

tou'to suvmbolon tou' to; iJ erei'on to; n tovpon plhrou' n tou'

prosfevronto", th; n uJpe;r aujtou' decovmenon sfaghv n.

jEpishmhv nasqai de; proshvkei wJ" uJpe;r tou' ajrcierevw"prosefevreto movsco",b uJpe;r de; panto;" tou' laou' pavlin

movsco",c uJpe;r de; tou' a[rconto" civmaro",d uJpe;r eJkavstou de;

aj ndro;" civmaira:e provsforon ga;r tw' / me; n a[rconti to; a[rren, tw' /

de; ajrcomev nw/ to; qh'lu, ejpeidh; kai; th; n gunai'ka tw' / ∆Ada;m ejx

ajrch'" uJpevtaxen oJ Qeov".f

J O de; movsco", oJ peri; aJmartiva" quovmeno", e[xw th'"

parembolh'" katekaiv eto.g

touvtou cavrin kai; oJ despovth" Cristov", h | / fhsin oJ qei'o" ajpovstolo", e[xw th' " puvlh" e[paqen h

kai; tw' / tuvpw/ th; n ajlhvqeian ejpitevqeike.

Tw' / de; qusiasthrivw/ prosefevreto to; ejpivploun. tou'to ga;r

levgei to; stevar to; ejpi.......koiliva", kai; oiJ duvo nefroiv, kai; to;

stevar to; ejpæ aujtw' n, kai; oJ tou' h{pato" lobov",i o{per oiJ a[lloi

eJrmhneutai; peritto;n proshgovreusan. aij nivgmata de; tau'ta tw' n

ej n hJmi' n paqhmavtwn: to; me; n ga;r stevar, to; th; n koilivan

kaluvpton, shmaiv nei th'" gastrimargiva" th; n novson, oiJ de;

nefroi; ta;" uJpogastrivou" hJdonav", oJ de; lobo;" tou' h{pato" to;


A [ ], B, C, = mss.

l. o{per Sir. Sch. F.M. : o{ nper = “The membrane enclosing the entrails was offered on the altar, for this is the meaning of ‘the fat on the belly, the two kidneys and the fat on them, and the lobe of the liver,’ which the other translators called ‘the remainder.’” Cf. Wevers and Quast, ap. crit. on Ex ..

a. Ex ., , mmb. Lv .–mmc. Lv .–mmd. Lv .–mme. Lv .–mmf. Gn .mmg. Ex .mmh. Heb .mmi. Ex .mm



Why did the priests lay their hands on the victims before sacrific-

ing them?a

The priests did not lay their hands on all the victims, but only on

those they offered for themselves, especially the sin offerings. In

other cases, the person offering the sacrifice put his hands on the

victim. This was a sign that the victim took the place of the offerer

by undergoing death for him.

We should note that a calf was offered for the high priest,b a calf likewise for all the people,c a he-goat for the ruler,d and a she-goat

for each man.e It was appropriate, you see, that a male be offered for

the ruler, but a female for the ruled, since God at the outset subject-

ed the woman to Adam.1f

Now, the calf sacrificed for sin was burned outside the camp.g

Therefore, as the holy apostle says, Christ the Lord also “sufferedoutside the gate.”2h He, thus, provided the fulfilment of the type.

The membrane enclosing the entrails, which the other transla-

tors called “the remainder,” was offered on the altar, for this is the

meaning of “the fat on the belly, the two kidneys and the fat on

them, and the lobe of the liver.”i These details are obscure references

to our passions.3 The fat covering the belly signifies the vice of glut-

tony, the kidneys sexual pleasures, the lobe of the liver anger, be-

cause the liver is linked to the gall bladder, containing the bile. He

Question

. Theodoret supplements his exposition of the offerings made by the priestswith reference to Lv .–, where different sin offerings are prescribed for rulersand common people, and refers to Gn f. for proof that woman is subject to man;cf. note to Q. on Gn.

. Again, the christological interpretation is brief; Theodoret’s interest is in the

OT ritual itself.. The respondent now goes beyond the limits of the question to offer a moral

interpretation of the sacrifice of consecration.



qumoeidev": ejkeiv nw/ ga;r sunh'ptai to; colhdov con ajggei'on. tau'ta

de; kaqierou' n keleuv ei kai; oiJonei; nekra;" aujtw' n ajpofaiv nein ta;"

ponhra;" ej nergeiva".

Tou' de; th'" teleiwvsew" kriou' to; n bracivona to; n dexio; nprosenegkei' n dihgovreuse, j th; n praktikh; n ajreth; n dexia; n ou\san

kai; ajrivsthn tw' / Qew' / prosfevrein keleuvwn. oJ de; a[rto", kai; to;

lavganon,k kai; hJ tou' oi[ nou spondh;l tou;" ajpo; gh'" fuomev nou"

dhlou'si karpouv", w | n ta;" ajparca;" prosfevrein o{sion tw' / Qew' /.

Tiv ejstin eij" ojsmh;n eujwdiva" .......kav rpwmav ejsti Kurivw/; a

Dia; tw' n aj nqrwpiv nwn ta; qei'a didavskei. ejpeidh; ga;r hJmei'"

tai'" eujosmivai" terpovmeqa, th; n kata; novmon genomev nhn

iJ erourgivan ojsmh;n eujwdiva" wj novmasen. o{ti ga;r ouj dei' gumnw' /

prosev cein tw' / gravmmati kai; hJ tou' Qeou' fuvsi" didavskei:

ajswvmato" gavr: kai; hJ dusosmiva tw' n kaiomev nwn ojstw' n: tiv ga;r

ejkeiv nwn ejsti; duswdevsteron; oiJ mev ntoi a[lloi eJrmhneutai;

eujaresthvsew" aj nti; eujwdiva" teqeivkasin.

Tiv no" cavrin ejx eJkavsth" qusiva" uJpe;r swthriva"prosferomev nh" to; n iJ ereva lambav nein to; n bracivona to; n dexio; n

kai; to; sthquv nion dihgovreusen;a


j. Ex .–mmk. Ex .mml. Ex .

A [ ], B, C –50 , = mss.

a. Ex .

A [ ], B, C, * = mss.

a. Ex .–



commanded them to sacrifice these things and, as it were, put their

wicked inclinations to death.

In prescribing the offering of the right shoulder of the ram of consecration, j he commanded us to bring to God virtue active in

deed, a virtue right and proper, the best kind of virtue. The bread,

cake,k and libation of winel represent the crops that grow from the

earth; it is a religious act to offer the first-fruits of these to God.

What is the meaning of “It is an offering to the Lord for a sweet

odor”?1a

Through things human he gives instruction in things divine.

Since we like sweet fragrances, he called worship according to the

Law “a sweet odor.” Yet we learn that one should not heed the bare

letter if we consider God’s nature, which is incorporeal, and the foul

smell of burning bones. After all, what could be more malodorous?

For “sweet,” in fact, the other translators put “acceptable.”

Why did he order the priest to take the right shoulder and breastof each victim offered for salvation?a

Question

. This translation represents the truncated version of the second half of Ex . that Theodoret read in his Bible, and which appears also in the SamaritanPentateuch. In the more widely attested LXX form of this verse e[ nanti kurivou(before the Lord) follows eujwdiva~ (a sweet odor) and is understood as the end of one clause, while kavrpwma (an offering) is taken as the beginning of another:

“[you will offer them upon the altar of burnt offering] as a sweet odor before theLord; it is an offering to the Lord.” One could introduce a stop before kavrpwmavalso in Theodoret’s text, but, given his habit of citing single sense units in the



Dia; tou' sthqunivou to; logiko; n kai; to; qewrhtiko; n ajpaitei'

to; n iJ ereva: kavlumma ga;r to; sthquv nion th'" kardiva": dia; de; tou'

dexiou' bracivono", th; n pra'xin th; n dexiav n: oujk ajrkei' ga;r hJ

pivsti" eij" swthrivan ajlla; dei'tai tw' n e[rgwn eij" teleiovthta.

Tiv ejsti to; ei{n ; a

Mevtron eJbrai>ko; n oi[ nou kai; ejlaivou. dev cetai dev, w{" fhsin

∆Iwvshpo", duvo cova" ajttikouv".b

pisteutevon de; ej n touvtoi" aujtw' /,ajkribw'" tou' e[qnou" ta; mevtra ejpistamev nw/.

Peri; tw' n sabbavtwn nomoqetw' n, e[ fh, e[sti ga; r shmei' on ejn

ej moi; kai; toi' " uiJoi' " ∆Israh;l eij" ta;" genea;" uJ mw' n.a pw'" ou\ n

tou'to nohvsomen;

{Wsper, tw' / ∆Abraa;m th; n peritomh; n didouv", e[ fh, kai; e[stai

eij" shmei' on .......ajna; mevson ej mou' kai; uJ mw' n,b ou{tw, kai; peri; tou'

sabbavtou nomoqetw' n, e[ fh, e[sti ga; r shmei' on ejn ej moi ; kai;

toi' " uiJoi' " ∆Israh;l eij" ta;" genea;" uJ mw' n.c to; ga;r kaino; n th'"

politeiva" aj ei; tou' nomoqevtou th; n mnhvmhn aj nqei' n pareskeuvaze

kai; tw' n ejqnw' n tw' n a[llwn ej cwvrize. kaqavper ga;r ta;" poivmna"


A [ ], B, C –51, = mss.

a. Ex .mmb. Ios., A.I. .

A [ ], B, C, = mss.

ll. f. ejn ej moi; c –8 , , : ej moi; Sir. Sch. F.M. Cf. Wevers and Quast, ap.crit. on Ex ..

l. ejn ej moi; F.M. : ej moi; [ ], , , , Sir. Sch.l. toi~ uiJoi~ A [ ], c 1, , Sir. Sch. : ej n toi~ uiJoi~ F.M.

a. Ex . (LXX var.)mmb. Gn .mmc. Ex . (LXX var.)



By mention of the breast, he required of the priest the exercise of

reason and contemplation—the breast enclosing the heart—and by

mention of the right shoulder, right actions, for faith does not suf-

fice for salvation but requires works for perfection.1

What is a hin?a

A Hebrew measure of wine and oil. According to Josephus, it

holds “two Attic pints.”b

He is to be trusted in these matters, as hehad precise knowledge of the measures used by his people.1

Laying down the law regarding the Sabbath, he said, “It is a sign

between me and the children of Israel for your generations.”a How is

this to be understood?

When he gave circumcision to Abraham, he said,“It will be a sign

between me and you”;b so also, in laying down the law regarding the

Sabbath, he said, “It is a sign between me and the children of Israel

for your generations.”c This novelty in their way of life had the effect

of keeping the memory of the Lawgiver always before them and

marked them off from the other nations. The special features of the

Question

questions, it looks more likely that he regarded all six words as constituting onesentence, as Sirmond, Schulze, and Fernández Marcos and Sáenz-Badillos have allpunctuated; v. J.W. Wevers and U. Quast, ap. crit. ad loc.

. Cf. sec. of the “Introduction to Theodoret’s Life and Works” and note toQ. .

. Theodoret carefully explains these details regarding the daily life of the an-

cient Hebrews. Here, as in Q. , he consults Josephus; in his earlier commentary on Ezekiel (on .), he had consulted the Syriac version for a modern measure-ment equivalent to the hin.



kai; ta;" ajgevla" aiJ sfragide" dhlou'si, ou{tw ta; th'" tw' n

eJbraivwn politeiva" ejxaivreta kai; tw' n a[llwn aujtou;" diei'rge kai;

tw' / nomoqevth/ prosedreuv ein ejdivdasken.

Tiv dhv pote oJ ∆Aarw; n tw' / law' / to; n movscon dievgluyen;a

To; n skopo; n tou' ginomev nou proshvkei zhtei' n: ou{tw ga;r

ejxetavzonte", euJrhvsomen aujto; n ouj pantavpasi suggnwvmh"

ejsterhmev non. tou' ga;r ajdelfou' tessaravkonta hJmevra"diatriv yanto" ej n th' / tou' o[rou" ajkronuciva/,b kai; tou' laou'

lutthvsanto" kai; eij" th; n Ai[gupton aj nastrev yai oJrmhvsanto",c

prw'ton me; n ejpeiravqh lovgoi" aujtw' n th; n oJrmh; n calinw'sai.

ejpeidh; de; ajpeiqou' nta" ei\den, h[ /thse tw' n gunaikw' n ta; crusiva,d

pavqei pavqo" aj ntistrateuvsa", to; filovkosmon kai;

filocrhvmaton th' / th'" deisidaimoniva" maniva/, ajllæ oujde; tou'to

to; mhcav nhma th; n ejkeiv nwn e[sbese luvttan. o{qen hj nagkavsqh

diagluv yai to; n movscon kaiv, toiouvtw/ skopw' / crhsavmeno", th'"

qeiva" ejdehvqh filanqrwpiva" w{ste th; n timwrivan diafugei' n. kai;

tou'to Mwu>sh'" oJ qeiovtato" ej n tw' / Deuteronomivw/ dedhvlwken:

ejdehvqhn, gavr fhsi, tou' Kurivou peri; ∆Aarw; n tou' ajdelfou' mou,

kai; oujk ajpevqanen.e


A [ ], B, C –51, = mss.

l. toiouvtw/ skopw/ ` B, , : toiouvtw/ de; skopw/ ` Sir. Sch. F.M. = “and then, acting with this sort of intention, he was in need of God’s loving kindness to escape retribution .” The consecutive de; would undermine the concessive force theparticiple evidently bears in the context; cf., e.g., Thdt., H. rel. pf., sec. (∆Allæo{mw~ kai; toiouvtou~ e[ cousa tou;~ aj ntipavlou~ hJ tw` n aJgivwn touvtwnsummoriva.......ou{tw lampra; n aj nedhvsanto nivkhn).

a. Ex .mmb. Ex .mmc. V., e.g., Ex .mmd. Ex .mme. Dt .



Hebrews’ way of life set them aside from others and taught them to

serve their Lawgiver much as branding identifies the owners of

flocks and herds.

Why did Aaron fashion the calf for the people?a

We should inquire into the purpose of his action. If we examine

this carefully, we shall find it was not completely without excuse. His

brother had spent forty days in the darkness of the mountain,b

andthe people were raving and bent on returning to Egypt.c First, he

tried to curb their impulse with words. Then, when he saw they con-

tinued to rebel, he asked for the women’s golden jewellery,d so as to

set one passion against another, namely, their love for adornments

and possessions against their crazed superstition. But not even this

ruse quenched their frenzy. Hence, he was forced to make an image

of the calf, and though he had acted with this sort of intention, he

was in need of God’s loving-kindness to escape retribution. That is

what the divinely inspired Moses indicated in Deuteronomy: “I in-

terceded with the Lord for my brother Aaron, and he did not die.” e

Question



Pw'" nohtevon to; kai; nu' n e[asovn me kaiv, qumwqei;" oj rgh' / eij"

aujtouv", ejktrivyw aujtou;" kai; poihvsw se eij" e[qno" mevga; a

Kai; to; ajpaqe;" tou' Qeou' kai; to; filav nqrwpon oJ lovgo"

dhloi: oJ ga;r qumw' / ti pravttwn kai; tou;" parakalou' nta"

dusceraiv nei. oJ de; Qeo;" e[ fh, e[asovn me kaiv, qumwqei;" oj rgh' / eij"

aujtouv", ejktrivyw aujtouv". oujdei;" de; aj namev nei tou;"

parakalou' nta", i{ na ojrgisqh' /, ajllæ i{ na paraklhqh' /: to; ou\ ne[asovn me aj nti; tou' kwvlusovn me ei[rhken. ejpeidh; ga;r hjgnov ei

Mwu>sh'" oJ mevga" th; n tou' laou' paranomivan, kai; tauvthn aujtw' /

dedhvlwken oJ Qeo;" kai; eij" presbeivan dihvgeire. to; de; poihvsw

se eij" e[qno" mevga ta; hJmevtera proshmaiv nei: o{per ga;r tovte ouj

gevgone meta; th; n tou' swth'ro" hJmw' n ejpifav neian gevgonen. oJ

mev ntoi nomoqevth", kai; tau'ta tou' Qeou' ajrkei' n aujto; n eij" th; n

uJpe;r tou' laou' presbeivan eijrhkovto", ouj c uJpevlaben iJkano;" ei\ nai pau'sai tou' Qeou' th; n ojrghv n. o{qen tw' n patriarcw' n ta;"

proshgoriva" aj nqæ iJkethriva" proshv negken, kai; tw' n pro;"

ejkeiv nou" o{rkwn aj nevmnhse, kai; ta;" gegenhmev na" sunqhvka"

ejmpedwqh' nai iJkevteusen.b

Dia; tiv ta;" plavka" sunevtriyen;a

jAnavxion kriv na" to; n lao; n th'" qeiva" nomoqesiva". ejpeidh; ga;r

proikwv /wn grammateivwn tuvpon ei\ con aiJ plavke", hJ de; nuvmfh


A [ ], B, C, = mss.

a. Ex .mmb. Ex .

A [ ], B, c, , = mss.

a. Ex .mm



How are we to understand the verse “Now let me be, and in my

burning anger, I shall consume them and make of you a great na-

tion”?a

This verse reveals both God’s impassibility and his loving-

kindness. Anyone who acts in anger also turns on those who try to

calm him, whereas God said, “Let me be, and in my burning anger, I

shall consume them.”1 Now, nobody waits for someone to rouse him

to anger, but to be calmed. So his words “Let me be” meant, “Stopme.” Since the mighty Moses was ignorant of the people’s transgres-

sion, God communicated this to him and prompted him to inter-

cession. But the statement “I shall make of you a great nation” fore-

shadows our situation; that is, what at that time did not occur took

place after the coming of our Savior. Despite God’s assurance that

he was capable of interceding for the people, the lawgiver did not

believe he was up to the task of quelling God’s wrath. Hence, he cit-ed the names of the patriarchs as an olive branch, reminded God of

the oaths he had sworn to them, and begged him to confirm the

covenants he had already made.b

Why did he smash the tablets?a

Because he judged the people unworthy of the God-given laws.

As the tablets represented a kind of dowry agreement, and the bride

Question

. As in Q. . on Gn, Theodoret is concerned to explain the anthropomorphiclanguage of the OT in a way that safeguards the divine transcendence; v. also The-odoret’s explanation of the expression “God’s back” (Ex .) in Q. and cf. Q. on Gn.



pro; th'" pastavdo" eij" moiceivan ajpevkline, mavla eijkovtw" to;

proikw' /on dievrrhxe grammatei'on.

jEpishmhv nasqai de; proshvkei wJ", tovte me; n dexavmeno" th; n

iJketeivan, oJ tw' n o{lwn Qeo;" aj nebavleto th; n timwrivan:prostevqeike dev, h | / dæ a]n hJ mev ra/ ejpiskevptwmai, ejpavxw ejpæ

aujtou;" pa' san th;n aJ martivan aujtw' n.b e[oike de; tou'to toi'" uJpo;

tou' ajpostovlou eijrhmev noi": ajgnow' n o{ti to; crhsto;n tou' Qeou'

eij" metavnoiavn se a[gei; kata; de; th;n sklhrovthtav sou kai;

aj metanovhton kardivan qhsaurivzei" seautw' / oj rgh;n ejn hJ mev ra/

oj rgh' ", kai; ajpokaluvyew", kai; dikaiokrisiva" tou' Qeou' , o}"

ajpodwvsei eJkavstw/ kata; ta; e[ rga aujtou' .c

J O mev ntoi nomoqevth" ajkouvsa" wJ" oujk aj nevxetai sunei' nai

aujtoi'" oJ tw' n o{lwn Qeo;" dia; to; sklhro; n aujtw' n kai; aj ntivtupon

ajllæ a[ggelon aujtoi'" ejpisthvsei,d h[ /thse me; n gnw' nai tiv" oJ th; n

khdemonivan aujtw' n pisteuqeiv", hj ntibovlhse dev, mh; dou' nai

aujtoi'" oJmovdoulon hJgemov na, ajllæ aujto; n aujtw' n hJghvsasqai to; n

despovthn.e ejpeidh; de; kai; tauvthn uJpevsceto dwvsein aujtw' / th; n

cavrin oJ ajgaqo;" Qeov", e[rwti mequvwn ejpainoumev nw/, tw' n uJpe;r

a[ nqrwpon hjravsqh kai; th; n ajqevaton fuvsin ijdei' n ejpequvmhsen.

ajlla; memavqhken wJ" ejkeiv nhn ijdei' n th; n oujsivan ajduv naton:f Qeo;n

ga;r oujdei;" eJwv rake pwvpote,g kata; th; n tou' Kurivou fwnhv n. ta;"

de; qeiva" oijkonomiva" te kai; ej nergeiva": ou{tw ga;r proshvkei

noei' n tou' Qeou' ta; ojpivsqia:h qewrh'sai dunato; n toi'" kata;

Mwu>seva teleivoi" th; n ajrethv n, kai; oujde; touvtoi" wJ" e[tucen,

ajllæ eij" th; n pevtran uJpæ aujtou' tou' Qeou' teqeimev noi":i

shmaiv nei de; au{th th'" pivstew" to; sterro; n kai; ajkravdanton:kai; dia; th'" ojph'" th'" pevtra": dhloi' de; au{th to; n th'" pivstew"

oj fqalmo; n qewrou' nta ta; toi'" aijsqhtoi'" oj fqalmoi'" aj nev fikta

kai; ajqevata.


b. Ex .mmc. Rom .–mmd. Ex .f.mme. Ex .–mmf. Ex .–mmg. Jn .mmh. Ex .mmi. Ex .f.



had lapsed into adultery right on the threshold of the bridal cham-

ber, he was entirely justified in tearing up the agreement.1

Now, we should also note that, when he accepted Moses’ petition,

the God of the universe postponed retribution but went on to say,“On the day I call them to account, I shall punish them for all their

sin.”b This is similar to the words of the apostle: “Are you unaware

that God’s kindness leads you to repentance? In your hardness and

impenitence of heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the

day of wrath and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God,

who will repay each according to his deeds.”c

But when he heard that, on account of their obstinate hard-

heartedness, God refused to consort with them but would send

them an angel,d the lawgiver asked to be told who was to be entrust-

ed with their care and begged that they be given no fellow slave as a

leader, but that the Lord himself lead them.e Since the good Lord

promised to grant him this favor as well, Moses became intoxicated

with a commendable love, and, conceiving a desire for what is be-

yond a human being, longed to see him who is by nature invisible.

He learned, however, that it is impossible to see that being f —“No

one has ever seen God,”g as the Lord said—whereas to see the divine

dispensations and actions (the true meaning of “God’s back”)h is

possible for those perfect in virtue like Moses. But, even for them,

this is not possible just anyhow, but only when they have been

placed by God himself “on the rock” i (that is, in stability and con-

stancy of faith), and only through “a cleft of the rock” (that is, withthe eye of faith, which can discern things inaccessible and invisible

to bodily eyes).

Question

. The analogy is Theodoret's own and serves to acquit Moses of the imputa-tion of rash behavior. For Theodoret's ability to imitate biblical imagery, v. note

to Q. on Gn.



Tiv shmaiv nei to; kavlumma to; ejpiteqe; n tw' / proswvpw/ tou'

nomoqevtou;a

[Ecomen tou' ajpostovlou th; n eJrmhneivan: mev cri, gavr fhsi,

th'" shv meron, hJnivka ajnaginwvsketai Mwu>sh' ", kavlumma ejpi; th;n

kardivan aujtw' n kei' taib mh; ajnakaluptov menon, o{ti ejn Cristw' /

katargei' tai:c hJnivka dæ a]n ejpistrevyh/ pro;" Kuv rion,

periairei' tai to; kavlumma.d w{sper ga;r tovte qeiva" ej neplhvsqh

dovxh" tou' nomoqevtou to; provswpon, kai; sevla" ejkei'qen uJpe;rajstraph; n ejkpempovmenon aj ntiblevpein oujk ei[a tou;"

ej ntugcav nonta" ajllæ h] eJtevrwse ta; provswpa trevpein h] tou;"

oj fqalmou;" muv ein hj navgkaze: kai; touvtou cavrin ej crh'to tw' /

prokaluvmmati, tw' / law' / dialegovmeno", pro;" de; to; n Qeo; n

ejpistrev fwn, gumno; n ei\ ce to; provswpon: ou{tw" ijoudai'oi, tw' / tou'

novmou prosev conte" gravmmati, th; n me; n dovxan ouj c oJrw'si,

mov non de; to; kavlumma blevpousi: th' / de; tou' panagivoupneuvmato" cavriti prosiov nte", ajpallavssontai me; n tou'

prokaluvmmato", qewrou'si de; th; n dovxan, h |" Mwu>sh'"


A [ ], B, C, * = mss.

l. aj naginwvsketai J.P. : aj naginwvskhtai Sir. Sch. F.M. Sir. and Sch.attribute to Thdt. one more citation of Cor . (Epp. Paul. ad loc.) in which

hJ nivka is followed by the subjunctive without a[ n, and both print hJ nivka.

...... e[lqwsin in his comment on Ez . (Ezech. ad loc.). Nonetheless, given therarity of this anomalous construction (only two other cases among the

appearances of hJ nivka in the works of our author; v. the TLG ) and the evidenceof the mss. which agree, apparently without exception, in offering the indicativein the two other quotations of this verse in the Quaest. in oct. (v. Q. on Dtand pf. Qq. on Jos ), it seems likely that the indicative should be read here aswell; the subjunctive in this passage and in the comment on Cor . may bedue to a careless attempt at regularization or mere etacism. Yet the subjunctivewith a[ n is read by Sir. and Sch. in Thdt.’s quotation of Cor . in hiscomment on Rom ., and the omission of a[ n both in Q. on Ex and in the

comment on Cor . may be nothing more than an error of haplography.a. Ex .–mmb. Cor .mmc. Cor .mmd. Cor .mm



What is the meaning of the veil placed on the face of the law-

giver?a

We have the apostle’s interpretation: “To this day, as Moses is

read out, there lies over their heart a veilb that is not lifted, but which

is set aside by Christ.c When one turns to the Lord, the veil is lifted.”d

At that time, the lawgiver’s face was filled with divine glory, and the

ray issuing from it, brighter than lightning, would not permit any-

one who conversed with Moses to look at him but forced them toturn away their faces or close their eyes. Hence, his having recourse

to a veil when talking to the people, whereas, when turning to God,

he kept his face uncovered. Just so, by focusing on the letter of the

Law, the Jews see not the glory but look only upon the veil. Those,

on the other hand, who have access to the grace of the most Holy

Spirit are rid of the veil and gaze upon the glory with which Moses

was filled. As St. Paul says,“All of us with face unveiled reflect, as in amirror, the glory of the Lord and are being transformed into the

same image from one degree of glory to another, for this comes

Question



ej neplhvsqh. tou'to ga;r kai; oJ makavrio" levgei Pau'lo": hJ mei' " de;

pavnte" ajnakekalummevnw/ proswvpw/ th;n dovxan Kurivou

katoptrizov menoi, th;n aujth;n eijkovna metamorfouv meqa ajpo;

dovxh" eij" dovxan, kaqavper ajpo; Kurivou pneuv mato".e w{sper ga;rta; dieidh' kavtoptra tw' n eijsorwv ntwn tou;" tuvpou" ejkmavttetai,

ou{tw" aiJ kaqarai; kardivai tou' Qeou' th; n dovxan eijsdev contai:

dio; dh; kai; oJ Kuvrio" e[ fh, makav rioi oiJ kaqaroi; th' / kardiva/, o{ti

aujtoi; to;n Qeo;n o[yontai.f kai; w{sper oJ ∆Iouvda", to; n diavbolon

eijsdexavmeno", th; n ejkeiv nou ponhrivan ejtuvpwsen ej n eJautw' /,

ou{tw" oJ th' / qeiva/ cavriti prosiw; n tai'" ejkei'qen feromev nai"

marmarugai'" kataugavzetai. ou{tw" oJ ej n skovtw/ kaqhvmeno"skotoeidh;" giv netai, oJ de; ej n hJlivw/ hJlioeidh;" kai; fwtoeidhv".

ou{tw" oJ tw' / Qew' / prosedreuvwn qeoeidei'" dev cetai carakth'ra".

Povqen ei\ con ta; xuvla ta; a[shpta; a

Sanivde" h\san dekaphv cei":b eijko;" toiv nun tauvta" ejschkev nai

tou;" eujporwtevrou" ejx Aijguvptou metenegkov nta" hJ nivka ejkei'qen

ejxh'lqon. tou;" de; polutimhvtou" livqou", kai; to; n crusov n, kai;

to; n a[rguron, kai; to; n calkov n paræ aijguptivwn labov nte",

ajph'ran: kata; ga;r th; n qeivan ej ntolhv n, h[ /thse gunh; para;

geivtono" kai; suskhvnou aujth' " skeuvh aj rgura' kai; crusa' kai;

iJ matismo;n .......kai; ejskuvleusan tou;" aijguptivou".c dio; dh; kai; ta;

prosferovmena ajparca;" proshgovreusen oJ tw' n o{lwn Qeo;" wJ"ajkroqiv nia skuvlwn.d


e. Cor .mmf. Mt .

A [ ], B, C, = mss.

a. Ex .mmb. Ex .mmc. Ex .mmd. Ex .



from the Lord, the Spirit.”e Just as a clear mirror reproduces the im-

age of one who looks into it, so a pure heart takes into itself the glo-

ry of God. Hence, the Lord said, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for

they will see God.”f As Judas received the devil into himself and gaveshape to the wickedness of the devil in his own person, so he who

approaches divine grace reflects its splendor. As the face of a man

sitting in darkness becomes dark, while the face of a man sitting in

sunlight becomes beaming and bright, so he who sits next to God

acquires the features of God.

How were they in possession of incorruptible wood?1a

The planks were ten cubits long,b so it is likely that the more af-

fluent people took them along when they were departing from

Egypt. When they left, they took from the Egyptians precious

stones, gold, silver, and bronze as they were commanded by God: “A

woman asked her neighbor and her housemate for silver and gold

vessels and clothing, and they despoiled the Egyptians.”c Hence, the

God of the universe referred to these offerings as “first-fruits,” since

they were the first pickings of booty.d

Question

. The Greek a[shpta, representing the Hebrew word for “acacia,” may also

mean “incorruptible,” the sense in which Theodoret here understands the term. Itis unclear whether the question regards the marvelous incorruptibility of thewood or the availability, in the wilderness, of any wood at all.



Poivou carivsmato" oiJ peri; to; n Beseleh;l e[tucon;a

Sofiva" ajrcitektonikh'". e[sti ga;r sofiva uJ fantikhv, kai;

sofiva gewrgikhv, kai; sofiva ijatrikhv. e{kaston de; touvtwn dw'ron

Qeou', eij" crh'sin toi'" aj nqrwvpoi" dedwrhmev non.

Dia; tiv th' / noumhniva/ tou' prwvtou mhno;" sth'sai th; n skhnh; n

prosevtaxen oJ Qeov";a

jEpeidh; kata; tou'ton to; n kairo; n th; n ktivsin ejdhmiouvrghse.

kai; marturei' tw' /de tw' / lovgw/ tw' n dev ndrwn hJ blavsthsi":

blasthsavtw, gav r fhsin, hJ gh' botavnhn cov rtou, spei' ron

spev rma kata; gevno" kai; kaqæ oJ moiovthta kai; xuvlon kav rpimon,poiou' n karpovn, ou | to; spev rma aujtou' ejn aujtw' / eij" oJ moiovthta

kata; gevno" ejpi; th' " gh' ":b ajrcomev nou de; tou' e[aro", kai; oiJ

leimw' ne" aj nqou'si, kai; kumaiv nei ta; lhvi>a, kai; ta; dev ndra fuv ei

karpov n. diav toi tou'to kai; to; n ∆Israh;l kata; toutoni; to; n

kairo; n hjleuqevrwse th'" aijguptivwn douleiva",c kai; th' / aJgiva/

parqev nw/ Gabrih;l oJ ajrcavggelo" ejkovmise tw' n paradovxwn wjdiv nwn

ta; eujaggevlia.d kata; tou'ton to; n kairo; n kai; oJ despovth"

Cristo;" to; swthvrion uJpevmeine pavqo".e mavla toiv nun eijkovtw" th' /

miva/ tou' prwvtou mhno;" sth' nai th; n skhnh; n oJ tw' n o{lwn

despovth" Qeo;" prosevtaxe kai; o{ti tou' kovsmou panto;"

ejktuvpwma h\ n, kai; i{ na eujtrepivsh/ pro;" th; n tou' Pavsca eJorthv n,


A [ ], B, C, = mss.

a. Ex .–.

A [ ], B, c, * , * = mss.

a Ex .f.mmb Gn . (LXX var.)mmc Ex .f.mmd Lk .mme Mk .mm



What gift were Bezalel and his men given?a

Skill in construction. There is a skill of weaving, a skill of agricul-

ture, and a skill of medicine—each a gift of God bestowed for the

use of humanity.

Why did God command Moses to erect the tabernacle on the

first day of the first month?a

Because that was when he created the world. The sprouting of

the trees confirms my statement: “Let the earth produce green vege-

tation, scattering seed according to its kind and likeness, and fruit-

bearing trees producing fruit that contains its seed in it for a likenessaccording to each kind on the earth.”b At the beginning of spring,

the meadows blossom, the wheat waves in the breeze, and the trees

bear fruit. Therefore, it was at this time that he freed Israel from

slavery to the Egyptians,c and the archangel Gabriel brought to the

holy Virgin the good news of a miraculous birth.d At this time also,

Christ the Lord underwent the saving passion.e It was entirely ap-

propriate for the Lord God of the universe to order the erection of

the tabernacle on the first day of the first month, because it was

both a representation of the whole world and a reminder for the

Question



h} n prwvthn ejpitelei' n novmo" h\ n ijoudaivoi".f tovte de; kai; prw'ton

tauvthn e[mellon eJortavzein th; n eJorth; n ej n th' / ejrhvmw/: deuvteron

ga;r h\ n e[to" meta; th; n th'" douleiva" ajpallaghv n.g


f Ex .–mmg Ex .



people to prepare for the feast of the Passover, the first feast whose

celebration was enjoined upon the Jews by the Law.1f At that time

they were due to have the first celebration of this feast in the wilder-

ness, for a year had passed since their liberation from slavery.g

Question

. Theodoret finds four justifications for the date prescribed in Ex .: () theindication he discovers in Gn . that creation occurred in the spring of the first

year; () the observance of Passover in the month of Nisan, the first month of theIsraelite calendar, which fell during our March and April (v. J.L. McKenzie,“Nisan,” p. ); () the spring-time date of the Annunciation, which he probably deduces from the liturgical celebration of the birth of Christ nine months later,though Lk . explicitly dates the Annunciation to the sixth, rather than the first,

month; () the coincidence of the Passion with the Passover.



Support for the

L I B R A R Y O F E A R L Y C H R I S T I A N I T Y

from the following donors is gratefully acknowledged

The Annenberg Foundation

Ave Maria School of Law

Christopher A. Beeley

The Gladys Krieble Delmas Foundation

Mr. and Mrs. Peter Flanigan/New York Community Trust

Herrick Jackson and Polly Jackson/The Connemara Fund

Rev. Richard T. Lawrence

The National Endowment for the Humanities

Mr. and Mrs. Michael Novak

Dr. and Mrs. Paul S. Russell

Mark Ryland

Sacred Heart School of Theology

The Cynthia L. and William E. Simon Foundation

The Strake Foundation

Michael J. Aquilina Jr.

Rev. William R. Deutsch

Rev. Gerard H. Ettlinger, S.J.

Everett Ferguson

Rose A Frascello

Henry Ciemniecki Lang, Ph.D.

Johan Leemans

Rev. Joseph T. Lienhard, S.J.

Samuel J. Mikolaski

Michael Mintz

-