STUDIA PATRISTICA VOL. LV Papers presented at the Sixteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford 2011 Edited by MARKUS VINZENT Volume 3: Early Monasticism and Classical Paideia Edited by SAMUEL RUBENSON PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – WALPOLE, MA 2013 Table of Contents Samuel RUBENSON, Lund, Sweden Introduction ......................................................................................... 3 Samuel RUBENSON, Lund, Sweden The Formation and Re-formations of the Sayings of the Desert Fathers 5 Britt DAHLMAN, Lund, Sweden The Collectio Scorialensis Parva: An Alphabetical Collection of Old Apophthegmatic and Hagiographic Material ...................................... 23 Bo HOLMBERG, Lund, Sweden The Syriac Collection of Apophthegmata Patrum in MS Sin. syr. 46 35 Lillian I. LARSEN, Redlands, USA On Learning a New Alphabet: The Sayings of the Desert Fathers and the Monostichs of Menander........................................................ 59 Henrik RYDELL JOHNSÉN, Lund, Sweden Renunciation, Reorientation and Guidance: Patterns in Early Monasticism and Ancient Philosophy ........................................................... 79 David WESTBERG, Uppsala, Sweden Rhetorical Exegesis in Procopius of Gaza’s Commentary on Genesis 95 Apophthegmata Patrum Abbreviations ...................................................... 109 Rhetorical Exegesis in Procopius of Gaza’s Commentary on Genesis David WESTBERG, Uppsala, Sweden Introduction: Procopius and the Bible In overviews of Procopius of Gaza, who was head of the rhetorical school in Gaza around 500 AD, scholars have often been perplexed by the contrast between his rhetorical and his exegetical works, as they are sometimes labelled.1 The same orator who lauded Anastasius I and hailed him as the descendant of Herakles and Zeus also compiled lengthy commentaries to the Old Testament, assembling remarks from various church fathers and arranging them in the order of the biblical text. This ‘problem’, which Procopius has in common with so many other late antique authors (e.g. Macrobius, Nonnus of Panopolis), has produced various explanatory models. It has been suggested that Procopius was a pagan as a young man and then converted, or that we are dealing with multiple authors of the same name. Procopius is a good example of how an author who moves across pagan and Christian genre boundaries creates a certain taxonomic unease in modern scholars. Physical geography, too, has been a source for scholarly boundaries. The city of Gaza has sometimes been treated as a Hellenised island in the midst of a monastic sea. The rhetorical school (in itself a doubtful concept) has been treated as a more or less closed environment, an ivory tower, where the classics were cultivated and sophist were allowed to revel undisturbed in the myths of antiquity.2 The vivid monastic milieu, on the other hand, has been associated with the Egyptian traditions rather than with the whereabouts of the city rhetoricians and is usually considered on its own.3 There is an awareness that there 1 For example Wolfgang Aly, ‘Prokopios von Gaza’, RE 23:1 (1957), 259-72. For a recent overview of Procopius’ life and works, see Eugenio Amato, ‘Dati biografici e cronologia di Procopio di Gaza’ and ‘La produzione letteraria di Procopio’, both in E. Amato (ed.), Rose di Gaza. Gli scritti retorico-sofistici e le Epistole di Procopio di Gaza (Alessandria, 2010), 1-9 and 10-45. 2 This tendency is clear in, for example, Glanville Downey’s influential Gaza in the Sixth Century (Norman, 1963), see for example the remarks on ibid. 113: ‘The whole atmosphere of Gaza was congenial to quiet literary study’; and ‘the handsome classical buildings and the equable climate made Gaza an eminently pleasant residence for academic folk.’ It should be noted, however, that the book was written as a popular introduction rather than a scholarly monograph. 3 For various aspects of monasticism in the Gaza region, see especially Brouria Bitton-Ashkelony and Aryeh Kofsky, The Monastic School of Gaza (Leiden, 2006); Jennifer Lee Hevelone-Harper, Studia Patristica LV, 95-108. © Peeters Publishers, 2013. 96 D. WESTBERG were contacts between the ‘city’ and the ‘desert’, but only rarely have writings from the two environments been examined together. In an attempt to bridge this gap, Procopius is a good case-study since his combination of classical and Christian interests is well attested. His disciple Choricius tells us in the funeral speech over his master: táxa toínun tiv tosoÕton pl±qov katorqwmátwn âkoúsav toiaútjn pròv ëautòn ∂nnoian lßcetai· «ãnqrwpov oœtov – tòn teleutßsanta légwn – oû pÉpote qeíwn, Üv ∂oiken, Øcato suggrammátwn. poían gàr ¥ge sxol®n tosaútaiv merihómenov âreta⁄v;» taÕta mèn êke⁄non ãn tiv âgno¬n üpoláboi· t¬ç dè tosoÕton kaì taútjv pros±n t±v paideíav, ¿ste pl®n toÕ sxßmatov mónou pánta ¥n ïereúv. tá te gàr dógmata t±v eûsebeíav tá te toútoiv ântilégein êpixeiroÕnta, tà mèn ºpwv êpitjdeúsjÇ maqÉn, tà dè pròv ∂legxon êpistámenov, ãmfw kal¬v êpaideúqj. Perhaps, then, someone who had heard of such a great amount of virtue might think to himself: ‘This man – the deceased, I mean – has evidently never dealt with the Scriptures. For what time did he have, dispersed between so many virtues as he was?’ An ignorant person might form this opinion; but Procopius possessed so much of this [scriptural] learning (paideia) as well, so that, apart from being ordained, he was a priest in every respect. For he learned well both the dogmas of piety and those which contradict them. He studied the former in order to practice them and the latter in order to prove them false.4 As we see, the division between a ‘secular’ and a ‘Christian’ learning is presented by Choricius, but in contrast to modern scholars he did not regard the two cultures as mutually exclusive. The same view on two different but complementary forms of education is brought out even clearer when Choricius discusses someone who was indeed a priest. Marcian, the bishop of Gaza, had both attended the rhetorical school (with Procopius as his teacher) and received theological instruction. Choricius comments upon this double education: ∂dei dè ëkatérav paideúsewv, t±v mèn eûglwttían xarihoménjv, t±v dè t®n cux®n Öfeloúsjv, ºpwv êpistßmwn te génoio t¬n ïer¬n suggrammátwn kaì dunßsjÇ to⁄v ãlloiv eûmaqésteron ërmjneúein. o∆koun æfqj tiv ên to⁄v parà soÕ mujqe⁄sin oÀtw pròv eûsébeian dúseriv, Ωv oû dixóqen ëálw sunelqoúsjv maqßmasin âmáxoiv Åjtoreíav tosaútjv. Each kind of education (paideusis) was necessary, the former offering fluency in speech, the latter benefitting the soul. In this way you could both become versed in the Disciples of the Desert: Monks, Laity, and Spiritual Authority in Sixth-Century Gaza (Baltimore and London, 2005), Jan-Eric Steppa, John Rufus and the World Vision of Anti-Chalcedonean Culture (Piscataway, NJ, 2005) and many of the contributions in Brouria Bitton-Ashkelony and Aryeh Kofsky (eds), Christian Gaza in Late Antiquity (Leiden, 2004). Egyptian connections are specifically addressed in Samuel Rubenson, ‘The Egyptian Relations of Early Palestinian Monasticism’, in Anthony O’Mahony, Göran Gunner and Kevork Hintlian (eds), The Christian Heritage in the Holy Land (London, 1995), 35-46. 4 Choricius, Funeral Oration on Procopius (Or. 7 [VIII]), 21. Rhetorical Exegesis in Procopius of Gaza’s Commentary on Genesis 97 holy scriptures and able to explain them in a way easily understood by others. Thus, no one was to be seen among your fellow-initiates so argumentative concerning religion that he was not beaten when oratory joined with uncontestable teachings.5 Again, as in the quotation from the funeral speech, there is a distinction between rhetorical and dogmatic instruction, but also the explicit statement that both are needed and fulfil different functions. In this presentation I wish to show that the difference between the two kinds of learning is one based on methodology rather than substance, i.e. what is done to the text is more indicative of the author’s task than which text is treated. This also involves a view on interpretative authority, which is to a certain extent a development of the traditional (and in practice often diffuse) contrast between rhetoric and philosophy. In sixth century Gaza we are rather dealing with a distribution between rhetoricians, bishops, and monks with regard to what kind of interpretation each group is supposed to perform, with sometimes rivalling, sometimes complementary claims of authority, cultural domains and legitimacy in importing values into the next generation. My contribution to the exploration of this complex issue develops from Procopius’ commentary on Genesis, which is a part of his commentary on the Octateuch. I will focus primarily on the introduction to this work, where Procopius draws up some lines for Biblical interpretation. By the very topics that are highlighted this introduction is revealing also of Procopius’ textual views and his approaches to interpretation.6 After a presentation of the text and a discussion of its genre, I shall dwell on the following points: First, I present Procopius’ way of selecting, arranging, and presenting the material, where he shows the rhetorician’s concern for his audience, rather than the theologian’s for exactitude in dogmatic details. Second, I will investigate his idea that Genesis consists of two kinds of writing, the historical and the legislative, which are his duty to explore, while he seems to consider other forms of exegesis such as allegory as outside his interpretative authority. Third, I will briefly discuss the image Procopius presents of Moses as a paradigm for the rhetorical teacher (including Procopius himself) and of the Old Testament as an ‘educational handbook’ for the New, to be used at a preparatory stage. My conclusion is that Procopius is highly aware of his status as a rhetorician and that this entails certain methodological restrictions for his exegesis, which thus will have a different scope than that of, for example, the 5 Choricius, Second Encomium on Marcian (Or. 2 [II]), 9. See also the discussion in Yakov Ashkenazi, ‘Sophists and Priests in Late Antique Gaza according to Choricius the Rhetor’, in B. Bitton-Ashkelony and A. Kofsky (eds), Christian Gaza (2004), 195-208. 6 See Karl-Heinz Uthemann, ‘Was verraten Katenen über die Exegese ihrer Zeit? Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Exegese in Byzanz’, in Georg Schöllgen and Clemens Scholten (eds), Stimuli. Exegese und ihre Hermeneutik in Antike und Christentum. Festschrift für Ernst Dassmann (Münster, 1996), 287-8. 98 D. WESTBERG monks in the region. First, however, it is necessary to present the text both with regard to the problematic editorial situation and to genre. The Commentary on Genesis and its Genre 1. Manuscripts and Editions Procopius’ commentaries on the Old Testament constitutes a bulky corpus. Photius, who in the ninth century noted that Procopius’ writings were ‘many and diverse’ (polloí te kaì pantodapoí),7 had read his commentaries on the Octateuch (CPG 7430), Reigns (CPG 7430a), Chronicles, and Isaiah (CPG 7434).8 These commentaries are all preserved, and we also have extant commentaries on Proverbs (CPG 7432), Ecclesiastes (CPG 7433; fragmentary),9 and the Song of Songs (CPG 7431), together with a number of works of doubtful attribution.10 Unfortunately very few of the exegetical works have been properly edited, and for most of the commentaries Patrologia graeca is still the standard edition.11 In most cases PG reproduces the editions of cardinal Angelo Mai, which are far from critical in the modern scholarly sense.12 The commentary on the Octateuch was first edited by Mai (1834) on the basis of cod. Vat. gr. 1441, cod. Ottob. gr. 141 and a now lost manuscript from the Albani library in Rome.13 In sum, there are about 15 witnesses to the text, three of which contain the entire work. Of these three the cod. Monac. gr. 358, dating from the late 9th century, is probably the archetype of the entire preserved Photius, Bibliotheca cod. 160. Photius, Bibliotheca codd. 206-7. The Book of Ruth is not included among the commentaries on the Octateuch. It is uncertain if it was missing from the beginning or has been lost. For Procopius’ commentary on Kings, see François Petit, Autour de Theodoret de Cyr. La Collectio Coisliniana sur les derniers livres de l’Octateuque et sur les Règnes. Le Commentaire sur les Règnes de Procope de Gaza, Traditio exegetica Graeca 13 (Leuven, 2003), xxxii-lx, 99-128. 9 Ed. Sandro Leanza, Procopii Gazaei catena in Ecclesiasten necnon Pseudochrysostomi commentarius in eundem Ecclesiasten, CChr.SG 4 (Turnhout, 1978) with supplement (1983). 10 William Cave, Scriptorum ecclesiasticorum historia literaria a Christo nato usque sæculum XIV facili methodo digesta, Vol. I. (Oxford, 1740), 505 mentions an unpublished commentary on the 12 Minor Prophets in a MS in Paris. There are also a number of spurious works. 11 In contrast to the ‘rhetorical’ works, which have recently been edited for the Teubner series by Eugenio Amato: Procopius Gazaeus. Opuscula rhetorica et oratoria (Berlin and New York, 2009). The standard edition for most of the Letters is Antonio Garzya and Raymond-Joseph Loenertz, Procopii Gazaei Epistolae et declamationes (Ettal, 1963); the text of this edition is reprinted in E. Amato (ed.), Rose di Gaza (2010), where discussions on textual corrections are found in the commentary. 12 In the words of Michael Faulhaber, Hohelied-, Proverbien- und Predigercatenen (Vienna, 1902), 28, Mai ‘hatte das eigenthümliche Missgeschick, meist jugendliche und wertlose Handschriften zu Grundlagen seiner Catenenausgaben zu machen’. 13 Françoise Petit, La Chaîne sur la Genèse. Édition intégrale, I (Leuven, 1991), xxxiii; Ludwig Eisenhofer, Procopius von Gaza. Eine literarhistorische Studie (Freiburg i.B., 1897), 16. 7 8 Rhetorical Exegesis in Procopius of Gaza’s Commentary on Genesis 99 tradition.14 Unfortunately the Greek text printed by Mai is based on three later manuscripts, all truncated and ending at Genesis 18:2. When in 1860 Mai’s edition was incorporated into PG 87.1, the remaining parts (from Gen. 18:3 to 1Kings) were supplemented from Nicephorus’ 1772-73 edition of Catena Lipsiensis, which is a different text. There is also a Latin translation accompanying the Greek text in Migne, made in 1555 in Zürich by Klauser and Hamberger and based on the full text in cod. Monac. gr. 358.15 It is thus a necessary complement to the Greek text, but unfortunately it is of poor quality.16 This maltreated version in PG is presently the standard text; a much anticipated new edition of the commentary on Genesis is being prepared by Karin Metzler on the basis of cod. Monac. gr. 358.17 2. Genre Procopius’ biblical commentaries have often been studied in connection with the so-called catenae. A catena is generally thought of as a compilatory work, connecting exegetical quotations from various authors to each other in order to explain a biblical book. There is a heurematographical tradition that suggests that Procopius ‘invented’ this genre. This suggestion has been said to stem from Devreesse’s 1928 article on catenae, but can be found (and also dismissed) earlier.18 In later discussions Devreesse was more cautious in his conclusions, but his suggestion has proven influential and is still found in recent standard overviews.19 14 F. Petit, La Chaîne sur la Genèse I (1991), xxxiii-xxxiv; the commentary on Genesis appears on folios 1-164. See also the notes on this MS with further references in ead., Autour de Théodoret de Cyr (2003), x and xxxiii. 15 Alfred Rahlfs, Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments (Berlin, 1914), 380n. 16 E.g. L. Eisenhofer, Procopius von Gaza (1897), 16: ‘Die ungenaue, oft geschmacklose und subjectiv gehaltene Uebersetzung des Conrad Clauser […]’. 17 Karin Metzler, ‘Genesiskommentierung bei Origenes und Prokop von Gaza’, Adamantius 11 (2005), 114-23: 114; ead., ‘Weitere Testimonien und Fragmente zum Genesis-Kommentar des Origenes’, ZAC 9 (2005), 143-8, 14715 and ead., ‘Auf Spurensuche: Rekonstruktion von OrigenesFragmenten aus der sogenannten Oktateuchkatene des Prokop von Gaza’, in A. Jördens, H.A. Gärtner, H. Görgemanns and A.M. Ritter (eds), ‘Quaerite faciem eius semper’: Studien zu den geistesgeschichtlichen Beziehungen zwischen Antike und Christentum. Dankesgabe für Albrecht Diehle zum 85. Geburtstag aus dem Heidelberger ‘Kirchenväterkolloquium’ (Hamburg, 2008), 214-28. 18 Robert Devreesse, ‘Chaînes exégétiques grecques’, in Dictionnaire de la Bible. Supplément 1 (Paris, 1928), 1083-1234, 1094: ‘Le fondateur des chaînes’; but already in the Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (1894) s.v. ‘Catena’ we find the remark that ‘the opinion of those who would ascribe it [the introduction of the catena] to Procopius Gaza’ cannot be substantiated. 19 Gilles Dorival, Les chaînes exégétiques grecques sur les Psaumes. Contributions à l’étude d’une forme littéraire, vol. I (Leuven, 1986), 105-6; Guy G. Stroumsa, ‘Religious Dynamics between Christians and Jews in Late Antiquity (312-640)’, in A. Casiday and F.W. Norris (eds), The Cambridge History of Christianity. Volume 2: Constantine to c. 600 (Cambridge, 2007), 100 D. WESTBERG In general I think that any attempt to try to find a pr¬tov eüretßv for a specific genre is methodologically mistaken, and in this case even the genre itself is unclear. Apart from the difficulties involved in assigning a genre or textual format to a specific inventor the very notion of catena has become both more defined and more problematic in later research. First, we should note that the word catena and its Greek equivalent seirá was not used in Late Antiquity, but seems to be a later designation.20 The concept has been subject to substantial modifications, and today the distinctions between various types of catenae reflect the needs of modern scholarly taxonomies rather than ancient usage. Petit, for example, applies a strict criterion and states that the presence of the biblical text is decisive for designating the commentary a catena.21 In this case the mise-enpage of the manuscript determines the genre. Another similarly formal criteria is whether the names of the quoted authors are given or suppressed. Consequently, as a result of this gradual narrowing of the genre’s definition, Petit may even state that Procopius’ commentary no longer qualifies as a catena.22 Here we must stress the importance of separating modern taxonomies from how the commentators themselves designated their projects. The need for modern terms and groupings can often be perfectly justified from a variety of scholarly perspectives, e.g. codicological. In their cultural context, however, these were working texts and adapted in various ways depending on their intended function. Thus Montana, in his discussion of Greek scholiastic corpora, notes that marginal scholia may be excerpted into a free-standing work ‘similar in effect to continuous hypomnemata’ as well as the other way around.23 In this way 151-72, 161. Robert B. ter Haar Romeny, ‘Procopius of Gaza and his Library’, in H. Amirav and B. ter Haar Romeny (eds), From Rome to Constantinople: Studies in Honour of Averil Cameron (Leuven, 2007), 173-90, 180-1 lucidly summarises the discussion. 20 Perhaps even as late as Thomas Aquinas’ Catena aurea; see R.B. ter Haar Romeny, A Syrian in Greek Dress: The Use of Greek, Hebrew, and Syriac Biblical Texts in Eusebius of Emesa’s Commentary on Genesis (Leuven, 1997), 20. For a looser, metaphorical usage of the word in connection with how arguments are presented, see the quotations from Quintilian below, p. 103. 21 F. Petit, La Chaîne sur la Genèse I (1991), xiii, n. 1: ‘C’est la présence du texte biblique qui distingue une chaîne d’une simple collection exégétique.’ 22 F. Petit, La Chaîne sur la Genèse I (1991), xiii n. 1: ‘Le Commentaire de Procope de Gaza […] ne peut pas non plus être qualifié de chaîne […]’ to which may be compared the wider formulation of, e.g., Hans Lietzmann, Catenen. Mitteilungen über ihre Geschichte und handschriftliche Überlieferung (Freiburg i.B., 1897), 1: ‘ein Sammelwerk, welches speciell exegetische Äusserungen verschiedener Autoren als Glieder einer großen Kette aneinanderreiht, um ein biblisches Buch zu erklären’. 23 Fausto Montana, ‘The Making of Greek Scholiastic Corpora’, in F. Montanari and L. Pagani (eds), From Scholars to Scholia: Chapters in the History of Ancient Greek Scholarship (Berlin and New York, 2011), 105-61, 109. An early example of such movement in and out of the margins is the Scholia Sinaitica, a Greek commentary on Roman law; see Kathleen McNamee, ‘Another Chapter in the History of Scholia’, CQ 48 (1998), 269-88, 283-4. See also Eleanor Dickey, Ancient Greek Scholarship: A Guide to Finding, Reading, and Understanding Scholia, Commentaries, Lexica, and Grammatical Treatises, from Their Beginnings to the Byzantine Period (New York, 2007), 1125 for an extensive note on the meanings of ‘scholia’ and other terms Rhetorical Exegesis in Procopius of Gaza’s Commentary on Genesis 101 catenae and other forms of biblical commentary may easier be viewed against the backdrop of commentaries and scholia on classical authors. This allows for a closer relationship between the modes of reading developed in the pagan schools and at least some forms of Christian exegesis. Genres are not created ex nihilo, and it is, I think, more fruitful to approach the issue in terms of which contributions Procopius may have made and which new directions he may have taken. It seems likely that he was keenly aware of both the similarities and the differences to other exegetical traditions. This is an assumption in the following, which I shall now attempt to substantiate as I turn to Procopius’ own statements in his introduction to the Commentary on Genesis. Exegetical Limitations and Pedagogical Deliberations It has been noted that it is difficult to tie Procopius to a specific exegetical tradition on the basis of his selections of authors in the commentary, and that he draws on Alexandrian as well as Antiochene authors. As already Eisenhofer pointed out, the extensive use of Cyril and Origen in some of the commentaries would suggest an Alexandrian orientation, but this is contradicted by the use of Antiochene authors in other commentaries.24 Haar Romeny remarks that ‘it seems that the different schools of exegesis were treated equally, and that doctrinal issues played no role: Antiochene exegetes such as Eusebius of Emesa, Diodore, and Theodore are presented besides Alexandrians such as Origen, Didymus, and Cyril, and this at a time when Origen had already fallen from favour.’25 This holds true also with regard to contemporary dogmatic discussions, especially the vehement Christological debate. In Procopius’ days there was a strong anti-Chalcedonian current in and around Gaza, as seen from works such as the anti-Chalcedonian Ecclesiastical History by Zachariah Scholasticus used by scholars. The decision on which term to use may be based either on the comment’s format (location in a ms.), or on the scope of the comment’s content; traditions vary. In this particular context, it may be noted that even Claudius Marius Victor’s Alethia, a fifth-century verse paraphrase of Genesis 1-19, was described as a commentary (commentatus) by Genadius (De viris illustribus). 24 L. Eisenhofer, Procopius von Gaza (1897), 11. Cyril: commentaries to Exodus, Leviticus, Numeri; Origen: comm. to Josua; Antiochene authors: comm. to Kings I-IV. To some extent this seems to be part of the tradition; F. Petit, La Chaîne sur la Genèse I (1991), xv, discusses the ‘liberté d’esprit’ of the catenist: ‘Il n’est d’aucune école, faisant alterner avec sérénité antiochiens et alexandrins’. Petit has also argued that Procopius based his selection of material on the Catena to the Octateuch but in a critical fashion, sometimes rejecting quotations and sometimes expanding them, and that the catenist and Procopius may have used the same library (F. Petit, ‘La chaîne grecque sur la Genèse, miroir de l’exégèse ancienne’, in G. Schöllgen and C. Scholten [eds], Stimuli: Exegese und ihre Hermeneutik in Antike und Christentum. Festschrift für Ernst Dassmann = JbAC, Ergänzungsband 23 [Münster, 1996], 243-53, 244-5). For a recent discussion on Procopius’ exegetical sources, see R.B. ter Haar Romeny, ‘Procopius of Gaza and his Library’ (2007), 183-6. 25 R.B. ter Haar Romeny, ‘Procopius of Gaza and his Library’ (2007), 189. 102 D. WESTBERG (preserved in a redacted and extended Syriac version) and the Life of Peter the Iberian by John Rufus, bishop of Maiuma.26 Nevertheless, attempts to detect an anti-Chalcedonian position in Procopius’ commentaries have proven inconclusive. Procopius’ focus seems to lay elsewhere. Haar Romeny has suggested that the catena was intended for education on a rather basic level, and not the place for doctrinal matters, a suggestion to which I shall return below.27 1. The Process of Collecting and Concerns for the Reader As a point of departure in clarifying this issue we may look at Procopius’ description of how he went about in creating his Commentary on Genesis. In the very first sentence of the introduction Procopius tells us that he ‘made a collection’ (21A sunelezámeqa), putting together interpretations ‘from commentaries and various logoi’ (êz üpomnjmátwn kaì diafórwn lógwn). These logoi may have been treatises or homilies such as Basil’s Hexaemeron, on which Procopius frequently draws. He encountered problems, however, as the material became too vast and unmanageable, and decided to apply certain criteria for reducing the amount of text: âll’ êpeì tàv Åßseiv aûtàv t¬n êkqeménwn aûtolezeì, êzeqémeqa, e÷te súmfonoi pròv âllßlav, e÷te kaì mß, kaì pròv pl±qov ãpeiron ™m⁄n ênteÕqen tò súggramma pareteíneto, sune⁄don nÕn pròv métron eûstalèv sunele⁄n t®n grafßn. êpeigómenov eî mén ti súmfwnon †pasin eÿrjtai, toÕto prosápaz eîpe⁄n· eî dé ti diáforon, kaì toÕto súntomwv êkqésesqai pròv tò dià pántwn πn genésqai s¬ma t±v graf±v, Üv ënòv kaì mónou tàv äpántwn ™m⁄n êkqeménou fwnáv. prosqßsomen dé ti kaì ∂zwqen eîv tranwtéran ∂sq’ ºte parástasin. But as we set out the very words of the selections verbatim, whether they agreed with one another or not, and the work thus began to reach an infinite amount, we decided at that point to shorten the writing to a manageable size. If an utterance was in agreement with everything else, I restricted myself to say it only once; and if it differed, I tried to set out this too in a concise way, so that the body of the writing would be a single one throughout, as if one and the same person was setting out the voices of all for us. We will also occasionally make some additions to make the exposition more lucid.28 Not only does Procopius sharpen his criteria for selecting exegetical passages in order to obtain brevity; he also brings in stylistic dimensions when he surrenders the integrity of the original texts in favour for the explicit aim of unity and clarity. His perspective is primarily audience-oriented and reflects his 26 On John Rufus, see Jan-Eric Steppa, ‘Heresy and Orthodoxy: The Anti-Chalcedonian Hagiography of John Rufus’, in Brouria Bitton-Ashkelony and Aryeh Kofsky (eds), Christian Gaza in Late Antiquity (Leiden and Boston, 2004), 89-106. 27 R.B. ter Haar Romeny, ‘Procopius of Gaza and his Library’ (2007), 189-90. 28 Procopius of Gaza, Commentary on Genesis 21A-24A. Rhetorical Exegesis in Procopius of Gaza’s Commentary on Genesis 103 rhetorical background, the paideia that in Choricius words made it possible to ‘explain [the Scriptures] in a way easily understood by others’. This concern for the readers rather than the authors may be viewed against Quintilian’s remarks on the practical considerations one should take into account when presenting syllogistic arguments: Locuples et speciosa <et imperiosa> vult esse eloquentia: quorum nihil consequetur si conclusionibus certis et crebris et in unam prope formam cadentibus concisa et contemptum ex humilitate et odium ex quadam servitute et ex copia satietatem et ex similitudine fastidium tulerit. Eloquence seeks to be rich, beautiful, <and commanding>. It will be none of these things if it is fragmented by definite, frequent, and monotonously structured formal arguments, and thus arouses contempt for its meanness, distaste for its hidebound restrictions, satiety because there is so much of it, and boredom because it is all the same.29 One must take care, Quintilian notes, not to undo the rhetorical impact by isolating the arguments into little units that are heaped onto one another. This, he remarks, was a stylistic vice that was common among the Greeks and resulted in taedium in the audience: Quae adprensa Graeci magis (nam hoc solum peius nobis faciunt) in catenas ligant et inexplicabili serie conectunt et indubitata colligunt et probant confessa et se antiquis per hoc similes vocant… And yet the Greeks (and this is the only thing they do worse than we do) seize on these things, tie them together into chains, make up concatenations of them that no one can unravel, infer conclusions that were never in doubt, prove admitted facts, and think themselves on a par with the classics for doing so…30 Here Quintilian uses the metaphor of the chain (in catenas) when referring to the Greeks’ bad habit of enumerating arguments. In addition to the practical issues of handling a large body of material, it is likely that part of Procopius’ concern for a clear delineation of the argumentative standpoints rather than exactness in quoting stems from stylistic considerations similar to those found in Quintilian. The expressed attempt to facilitate the readers’ appropriation of the text entails a pedagogical intention, which also clarifies the distribution of work between the theologian and the rhetorician. The role of a Christian orator is not to pursue theological truths – i.e. to be a philosopher – but to present the Scriptures in a comprehensible, pedagogical manner. Both the theologian and the rhetorician may in this sense contribute to the Christian cause, not opposed to one another as ‘monastic writers’ and ‘sophists’, but complementing each other as did the two forms of education in the case of both Marcian and Procopius himself. 29 30 Quintilian V 14.30; tr. Russell. Quintilian V 14.32; tr. Russell. 104 D. WESTBERG 2. Modes of Writing In his introduction, Procopius states that Moses pursued two kinds of writing (dúo metelßluqen e÷dj graf±v): tò mèn ïstorikón, tò dè nomoqetikón· toÕ dè nomoqetikoÕ tò mèn parainetikón, tò dè âpagoreutikón· kaì toÕ ïstorikoÕ tò mèn perì kósmou genésewv, tò dè genealogikón· toÕ dè nomoqetikoÕ tò mèn perì t±v kolásewv âseb¬n, tò dè perì t±v t¬n dikaíwn tim±v· the historical (historikon) and the legislative (nomothetikon). The legislative writing is divided into exhortative (parainetikon) and prohibitative (apagoreutikon); the historical writing is divided into that which concerns the world’s creation and genealogical writing. The legislative writing is divided into the punishment of the unpious and the reward of the just.31 This division into historical and legislative modes and the terminology is familiar from Clement of Alexandria, who writes: ¨J mèn oŒn katà Mwuséa filosofía tetrax±Ç témnetai, e÷v te tò ïstorikòn kaì tò kuríwv legómenon nomoqetikón, †per ån e÷j t±v ©qik±v pragmateíav ÷dia, tò tríton dè eîv tò ïerourgikón, º êstin ≠dj t±v fusik±v qewríav· kaì tétarton êpì p¢si tò qeologikòn e˝dov, ™ êpopteía, Øn fjsin ö Plátwn t¬n megálwn ∫ntwv e˝nai mustjríwn, ˆAristotéljv dè tò e˝dov toÕto metà tà fusikà kale⁄. According to Moses, philosophy is divided into four parts: the historical and that properly called the legislative, which both pertain to ethical matters; the third is the hierurgical, which is the contemplation of nature; and the fourth, the epoptic, concerns the whole class of theologiké, which Plato says concerns the nature of truly great mysteries, while Aristotle calls this class metaphysics.32 Clement drew upon the tradition of Philo and his divisions were later and more famously developed by Origen and by Augustine in the West.33 In a more decidedly monastic milieu the same division was taken over as a model for the individual soul’s spiritual progress by Evagrius Ponticus, who regarded the exegetical forms as a schema of spiritual progress.34 Procopius of Gaza, Commentary on Genesis 24C.7-12 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata I 28.176, 1-2. 33 Origen, for example in De principiis IV 2.4 and Com. in Cant. Prol. 3.6. Augustine’s insistence on distinguishing between historical and allegorical modes is prominent in his commentaries on Genesis. See especially De Genesi contra Manichaeos II 2.3-10.14 (PL 34, 197-201), where he distinguishes between interpretations secundum historiam and secundum prophetiam; see also De Genesi ad litteram imperfectus liber 2.5-3.5 (PL 34, 222), and De Genesi ad litteram libri XII 1.1.1 (PL 34, 247). 34 For example in his scholion 15 on Psalm 76:21. A summary and discussion of the development with special regard to Evagrius is found in Luke Dysinger, Psalmody and Prayer in the Writings of Evagrius Ponticus (Oxford, 2005), 62-6. 31 32 Rhetorical Exegesis in Procopius of Gaza’s Commentary on Genesis 105 This is a fine example of how exegetical methods and Biblical studies contributed to what has been called a ‘culture of the book’ in monastic settings, and indicative of the shift from extensive to intensive reading cultivated by monks.35 Scholars such as Frances Young and Robert B. ter Haar Romeny have stressed the continuation of rhetorical education within Antiochene exegesis and a specific view on text and interpretation embedded in that tradition: Christians adopted pagan hermeneutics but changed the canonical texts.36 Part of the preparatory study of a text under a grammaticus was labelled ‘historical’, that is the ‘exegesis of the authors’ (ennaratio auctorum).37 On this line Haar Romeny has concluded that Procopius’ and the catenists primary interest was ‘to present an instrument d’étude that would serve a grammatical and historical explanation of the text’, and that Procopius ‘was a sophist and wrote books that could be used as examples in the classroom’.38 This assumption is, I believe, correct, but it can also be complemented and expanded on some points. First, Procopius’ view on what he as a sophist and rhetorician is supposed to do with these texts also entails a view on what he should not do, i.e. what he leaves to others. This includes those dogmatic standpoints which we saw were lacking in his commentaries, as well as the remaining exegetical levels, especially the allegorical one. These are ‘philosophical’ issues left to the theologians proper and to the monks and bishops to handle. Second, ‘a grammatical and historical explanation’ is not synonymous with a simple enumeration of facts, but just as in Clement or Evagrius, the lower exegetical levels also involve moral aspects. The historical level is concerned with ethics, not least from a rhetorical viewpoint. To the rhetorician, history is a philosophy derived from examples – filosofía ïstoría êstín êk paradeigmátwn, as the Art of Rhetoric by Pseudo-Dionysius of Halicarnassus states.39 Historical figures were paradigms to be imitated, exempla of ethical conduct. Just as the stylistic devices and rhetorical figures of the great orators 35 See Guy Stroumsa, ‘The Scriptural Movement of Late Antiquity and Early Monasticism', JECS 16 (2008), 61-77, 68-9, with further reference to Peter Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York, 1988), 229. 36 Frances M. Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (Cambridge, 1997), 76-81; R.B. ter Haar Romeny, ‘Procopius of Gaza and his Library’ (2007), 178-9. 37 Quintilian I 9.1; see also I 4.2. Also Diomedes I 426.18: ‘All of grammar consists in knowledge of poets and writers and the ready exposition of histories, and in the rational study of correct speaking and writing’; Sextus Grammaticus, Against the Grammarians 91-6. 38 R.B. ter Haar Romeny, ‘Procopius of Gaza and his Library’ (2007), 189. 39 Ps.-Dionysius, Art of Rhetoric XI 2.35-6. On the importance of exempla in rhetorical exegesis, see the remarks in F.M. Young, ‘The Rhetorical Schools and Their Influence on Patristic Exegesis’, in Rowan Williams (ed.), The Making of Orthodoxy. Essays in Honour of Henry Chadwick (Cambridge, 1989) and ead., Biblical Exegesis (1997), 81. Exempla were of course pedagogically important within all branches of Graeco-Roman education. See also Rydell-Johnsén's article in this volume on pedagogical patterns in pagan and monastic authors for the purpose of importing a certain spiritual conduct. 106 D. WESTBERG from antiquity were to be internalised through mimesis by the student of rhetoric, the great figures of history were to be emulated through a mimesis of character. This is an ethics based on induction rather than on deduction from abstract principles.40 If we turn to the legislative level it pertains directly to ethical or moral exposition. Procopius divides the legislative form of writing into exhortations and prohibitions. The division of a specific form of writing in this case resembles a genre. The further division into a positive and a negative kind of this genre is reminiscent of the ways in which rhetorical technographers classify rhetorical themes as deliberative, judicial, or epideictic,41 with further subdivisions such as that of epideictic as ‘the rhetoric of praise and blame’.42 But just as in the case of historical writing, the division is not brought out in the Biblical text only in the shape of abstract prescriptions but also as exempla in the form of ‘the punishment of the impious and the reward of the just’ (24C 11-2 tò mèn perì t±v kolásewv âseb¬n, tò dè perì t±v t¬n dikaíwn tim±v). The ethical stance is further emphasised as it is connected not only to the form of writing, but to the legislator himself, who must ‘offer a life adapted to the harmony and order of the universe, and show that he both acts in accordance with his words and speaks in accordance with his actions’ (25A.11-3 súmfwnon tòn bíon t±Ç toÕ pantòv ärmoníaç kaì t±Ç tázei paréxesqai, kaì deiknÕnai sunáçdounta lógoiv ∂rga, kaì to⁄v ∂rgoiv tà Åßmata). The exposition of history and legislation with special regard to ethical formation, then, is the domain of the rhetorical exegete. Allegory, on the other hand, was in its developed exegetical form alien to rhetorical analysis. Allegory was discussed as a trope, closely related to irony in the sense of ‘saying something other’ than the literal meaning and to techniques of ‘figured speech’, i.e. the subtle art of pursuing a line of argument in such a way as to make the listener take opposite action.43 With regard to more elaborate forms of allegory Procopius presents us (28C.10-D.4) with the traditional view that the obscurities of the Old Testament were deliberate in order to protect ancient readers, whose weakness demanded that a veil (parapétasma, kálumma) was put up before the actual sense. The 40 The ‘rhetorical’ idea behind this is that the imitation of outward form brings about inward change as well, whether textual composition or ethical conduct is concerned. For an overview on this connection between ethics and imitation, the imitatio morum, and other forms of mimesis, see Anne Eusterschulte’s article ‘Mimesis’ in Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik, vol. 5 (Tübingen, 2001), 1232-49 (for the Classical and Late Antique periods). 41 E.g. Aristotle, Rhetoric I 3.1-3 1358a36-b8; Rhetoric to Herennius 1.2; Cicero, On Invention 1.7; Quintilian III 4. 42 E.g. Aristotle, Rhetoric 1.9 1366a-1368a; Rhetoric to Alexander Ch. 3; Theon, Progymnasmata 9 (109.19-112.21 Spengel); Menander Rhetor I 331.15. 43 See Quintilian, who discusses allegory as a trope at VIII 6.44-59, closely related to simile and metaphor on the one hand (e.g. VIII 6.49) and irony on the other (VIII 6.54-9). Rhetorical Exegesis in Procopius of Gaza’s Commentary on Genesis 107 uncovering of this sense would require allegorical interpretation. Occasionally he relates some such interpretations. In his discussion of Genesis 3:21 and the ‘tunics of skin’, a text that had often been subject to allegorisation, Procopius remarks (220A-221C) that the association of this passage with Job 10:11 is characteristic of ‘allegorist interpreters’ (oï âlljgoroÕntev) who also believe that the creation in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-7) refers to the soul and the creation out of earth (Genesis 2:7) to the ‘refined’ (leptomerév) body worthy of living in Paradise.44 However such allegory, and especially spiritual allegory, belonged within philosophical or monastic analysis, and Procopius distances himself from it. Instead it was cultivated, for example, by the monks in the region.45 3. Moses and the Teaching of the Young Finally, some remarks should be made concerning the figure of Moses and Procopius’ ideas about his intentions in writing his books, for whom he wrote them and with what purpose. In a typological manner Procopius presents the Old Testament as a preparatory course, ‘a kind of educational handbook’ (28A.10 xeiragwgían tinà paideutikßn) for the New Testament, which is the Old Testament’s aim, its skopóv (28A.9). This image of a ‘handbook’ to be used on an earlier stage of instruction evokes further educational metaphors. Moses is ‘like a teacher of young lads’ (28A.12 Üv meirakíwn didáskalov) who teaches historical events (the creation and genealogies) and the Law, while keeping silent about the higher theological secrets (28A.12-3 oûdèn t¬n âpoÄÅßtwn fjsí). But being a teacher for the young and refraining from commenting on theological secrets applies equally well to Procopius himself. Just like Moses, whose writings are a preparation for the New Testament, Procopius operates on a basic level of exegesis. As a rhetorician he has a primarily pedagogical task to fulfil. Again the image emerges of the rhetorician whose authority is restricted to a preliminary stage of theology, preparing the students for coming and more advanced studies under teachers from other professions. This also explains why Procopius commented only on the Old Testament: if he viewed the Old Testament as a preparatory manual for the New, he would be interested in it already on the basis of its genre. It would be the part of the 44 Procopius’ comments on Gen. 3:21 are studied in detail in Pier Franco Beatrice, ‘Le tuniche di pelle. Antiche letture di Gen. 3,21’, in U. Bianchi (ed.), La tradizione dell’enkrateia. Motivazioni ontologiche e protologiche. Atti del colloquio internazionale (Milano 20-23 aprile 1982) (Rome, 1985), 433-82. 45 On the use of allegorical interpretations in the monastic settings of Gaza, see François Neyt, ‘La formation au monastère de l’Abbé Séridos à Gaza’, in B. Bitton-Ashkelony and A. Kofsky (eds), Christian Gaza (2004), 151-63, 157. Procopius also refers to obscurities that have arisen as the text was translated from the Hebrew. 108 D. WESTBERG Bible befitting a rhetorician to interpret, limiting himself to the basic interpretative levels, while leaving both the New Testament and the higher exegesis to the ‘philosophers’, that is to the theologians and monks. Conclusion My aim in this presentation has been to further substantiate the suggestion that Procopius’ biblical commentaries were composed for a class-room setting and that they form a link between secular and Christian education. Procopius does not embark upon the ‘higher’ levels of interpretation (the hierurgical or epoptic in Clement’s terminology). This preference for the historical and legislative levels, the ‘moral’ levels, can probably be best explained by a perceived division of interpretative domains between the rhetorician and the philosophertheologian. The specific nature of the rhetorician’s exegesis is shown also in the liberty he is allowed in presenting and digesting the material for pedagogical reasons although it impinges on the dogmatic exactitude of the texts. The image of Moses and the pedagogical metaphors employed point in a similar direction. If, finally, we return to Choricius and the funeral speech, Choricius delineates Procopius’ duties as official sophist and schoolmaster: dúo gàr ∫ntwn, ofiv âret® basaníhetai sofistoÕ, toÕ te kataplßttein tà qéatra sunései lógwn kaì kállei toÕ te toùv néouv mustagwge⁄n to⁄v t¬n ârxaíwn ôrgíoiv. There are two tests of the excellence of a rhetorician, astounding his audience in the theatre by the wisdom and beauty of his words, and initiating the young in the mysteries of the ancients.46 This initiation took the form of a laborious explication of grammatical and historical difficulties. The basic procedure was to study and explain the classical authors under the supervision of a teacher, a procedure that the rhetorician could apply to any kind of text – it was an issue of method rather than material. The dividing line should therefore not be drawn between ‘exegetical’ and ‘nonexegetical’ or ‘rhetorical’ works. The difference rather resides in the method by which the material was treated and presented as well as in the implied audience. Investigations into this textual Sitz-im-Leben may also help to explain the role that Procopius the sophist was playing on the stage of Christian exegesis and how the task he perceived as his both contrasted to and complemented those of the bishop and the monks in sixth century Gaza. 46 Choricius, Funeral Oration on Procopius (= Or. 7 [VIII]), 7.