910 019 PDF
910 019 PDF
910 019 PDF
VOL. XXX
Edited by
ELIZABETH A. LIVINGSTONE
PEETERS
LEUVEN
1997
Early Antiochene Commentaries on Exodus
In the coming years, research into the history and method of the Antiochene
School may be expected to focus more on the first books of the Bible'. New
perspectives are being opened by Françoise Petit's editions of the Catena on
Genesis2 and the Collectie Coisliniana*, while Hovhannessian's edition of an
Armenian translation of Eusebius of Emesa's Commentary on the Octateuch is
also deserving of mention here4. The latter text gives us the opportunity to
examine a complete Antiochene commentary on the first parts of the Old Tes-
tament, written by one of the first concrete representatives of the Antiochene
School. Moreover, it enables us to better evaluate the collection of fragments
in the Catena, and to identify a number of extracts in Procopius's ejUTO|if| and
in the commentary of the ninth-century Syrian exegete ISo'dad of Merv, who
had independent access to Eusebius's work'.
As Mile Petit will be addressing this conference on her research into the
Greek Catena on Exodus6,1 should like to present here the Exodus part of this
Armenian text7. Until recently, only the Greek fragments of Eusebius of Emesa,
1
An example of this renewed interest is L. Van Rompay's 'Antiochene Biblical Interpretation:
Greek and Syriac', to be published in J. Frishman and L. Van Rompay (eds.), The Book of Genesis
in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation. A Collection of Essays (Louvain. 1997).
2
Two volumes have been published so far: La Chaîne sur la Genèse. Édition Intégrale 1.
Chapitres 1 à 3, éd. F. Petit (Tfaditio Exegetica Graeca 1 ; Louvain, 1991) and 2. Chapitres 4 à
II (Traditio Exegetica Graeca 2; Louvain, 1993).
3
Catenae Graecae in Genesim et in Exodum 2. Collectie Coisliniana in Genesim, éd. F. Petit
(CCG 15; Turnhout-Louvain, 1986).
4
Eusèbe d'Émèse 1. Commentaire de l'Octateuque, éd. V. Hovhannessian (Venice, 1980).
3
A presentation of the Armenian text may be found in H.J. Lehmann, 'An Important Text
Preserved in MS Ven. Mekh. no. 873, Dated A.D. 1299 (Eusebius of Emesa's Commentary on
Historical Writings of the Old Testament)' in T. Samuelian and M. Stone (edd.), Medieval
Armenian Culture (University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies; Chico CA, 1983),
pp. 142-160; on its relation to the other witnesses for Eusebius's commentary, see my '"Quis Sit
6 lûpoç" Revisited' in A. Salvesen (ed.), Hexapla and Fragments: Papers given at the Rich
Seminar on the Hexapla, Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies, 1994 (forthcoming). A
French translation of the Genesis and Exodus parts will be published by Prof. J.J.S. Weitenberg
and the present author.
6
Cf. above, pp. 97-101.
7
Ed. Hovhannessian, pp. 97-124. There are a number of texts in Devreesse's edition of the
Greek Catena fragments (Les anciens commentateurs grecs de l'Octateuque et des Rois (frag-
ments tirés des chaînes) (Studi e Testi 201 ; Vatican City, 1959), pp. 82-94) that cannot be traced
Early Antiochene Commentaries on Exodus 115
Acacius of Caesarea, and Diodore of Tarsus were known from the fourth-cen-
tury Antiochene School. The Armenian translation of Eusebius's commentary
enables us to broach the following questions: To which genre does his com-
mentary belong? How does an Antiochene exegete like Eusebius deal with the
various narrative and legislative parts of the book of Exodus? And finally, what
is the place of his commentary in the wider context of early8 Antiochene
exegesis?
in the Armenian translation. In this respect, the situations in Genesis and Exodus differ significantly:
in Genesis, there are only a very small number of Greek fragments with a clear attribution to Euse-
bius that are not found in the Armenian text. The style betrays some of the Greek fragments on Exo-
dus as being extraneous to the commentary, that is, either they were written by another author, or
they were part of some other work (e.g., ed. Devreesse, pp. 86-91, ad 3:2, 4:24, 4:25 and 4:29).
One fragment should be attributed to Severus of Antioch (ed. Devreesse, p. 93, ad 8:16). In the case
of the group of fragments which centre around Stephen's speech in Acts (ed. Devreesse, pp. 83-85
ad 2:1-10, 2:12-13, 2:15 and 3:1), Eusebius's lost 'Homily on Saint Stephen' springs to mind. —
It is not insignificant that none of the fragments in question are found in Iso'dad. However, if a few
fragments are indeed left which formed part of the commentary, this would not substantially alter
our present picture; the considerable gaps which we will be discussing in a moment remain.
8
I do not use this term in the sense of the traditional distinction between an 'Early' and a
'Late' Antiochene School. This periodization can no longer be maintained. See my 'Eusebius of
Emesa's Commentary on Genesis and the Origins of the Antiochene School', to be published in
J. Frishman and L. Van Rompay (eds.), The Book of Genesis (see note 1).
9
On the distinction between these types of commentaries, see Van Rompay, 'Antiochene
Biblical Interpretation'.
10
'Carmen Ebedjesu Metropolitae Sobae et Armeniae Continens Catalogum Librorum
Omnium Ecclesiasticorum' in Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana, 3, 1, éd. J.S. Asse-
mani (Rome, 1725), pp. 3-362; this text on p. 44 (cap. 36).
11
On Antiochene methods, see Chr. Schà'ublin, Untersuchungen zu Methode und Herkunft
der Antiochenischen Exegese (Theophaneia 23; Cologne-Bonn, 1974) and P.M. Young, 'The
Rhetorical Schools and their Influence on Patristic Exegesis' in R. Williams (ed.). The Making of
116 R.B. TER HAAR ROMENY
factual level; that is, he is interested in the actual events and their sequence,
and in the intention of the writer. He is fully alive to the context, coherence
and logic of the story. Eusebius often paraphrases the text. He also makes use
of passages from other books of the Old Testament in which the same words
are used, or where comparable events take place. He does not allow allegori-
cal explanations, but has found other ways to go beyond the plain sense of the
Greek text. Thus he assumes that Scripture sometimes uses a certain expres-
sion to convey (olicovoueïv) something else, and he accepts a limited number
of typologies. Another device to the same end is the use of readings from '6
Zopoc' and '6 EßpaToc'12. The fact that we do not find as many of these read-
ings here as in the Genesis part of the commentary may have to do with a ten-
dency which is becoming discernible in this part of the commentary and which
is much stronger in the second half. I am referring to the author's tendency to
lose interest in the course of events and in the exact wording of the biblical
text, and to turn to themes of a more universal significance. Thus the phrase
'Who has given man a mouth to speak, or who has made the dumb and the
deaf?' (Exod 4:11) is used as a means of introducing a long discourse on the
origin of disabilities: has God indeed created them, are they a retribution for
our sins? The place of the phrase in the biblical context is not dealt with.
Indeed, from Exod 7 onwards, Eusebius's commentary becomes more and
more thematic. First, he deals only briefly with a few aspects of the plagues,
going on to discuss Pharaoh's hard-heartedness. The work is now coming
close to a homily, its main aim being to explain that God is lenient and indul-
gent. This may be seen as an implicit polemic against the Marcionites, a dis-
pute which is also one of Eusebius's concerns in the commentary on Genesis.
In connection with the discussion of hardening of the heart, Eusebius explains
God's dealings with his people: he discusses dissuasion, retribution, and the
remission of their sins, citing from Exod 19, 20, 24, 32-34 and from other
books of the Bible. This exposition may have awakened Eusebius's interest in
God's revelations to Moses on Mount Sinai: he does not pick up the thread of
the story, but deals first with a few questions on this subject. He asks how
Orthodoxy; Essays in Honour of Henry Chadwick (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 182-199. Compare
also L. Diestel's classic account in his Geschichte des Alten Testamentes in der christlichen
Kirche (Jena, 1869), pp. 129-141. Although founded on Buytaert's outdated edition of Catena
fragments, J.A. NovotnJ's 'Les fragments exégétiques sur les livres de l'Ancien Testament
d'Eusèbe d'Émèse', OCP 57 (1991), pp. 27-67, is nevertheless a useful review of Eusebius's
exegetical principles.
12
On this issue, see H.J. Lehmann, 'The Syriac Translation of the Old Testament — as Evi-
denced around the Middle of the Fourth Century (in Eusebius of Emesa)', SJOT l (1987), pp. 66-
86; my 'Techniques of Translation and Transmission in the Earliest Text Forms of the Syriac
Version of Genesis' in P.B. Dirksen and A. van der Kooij, The Peshitta as a Translation. Papers
Read at the II Peshitta Symposium Held at Leiden 19-21 August 1993 (Monographs of the
Peshitta Institute Leiden 8; Leiden [etc.], 1995), pp. 177-185 and '"Quis Sit 6 lopoc" Revis-
ited'.
Early Antiochene Commentaries on Exodus 117
these revelations took place, when they took place, and why they lasted twice
forty days. After this, he does not return to the episode in the desert, but
decides to deal with some of the laws in the Book of the Covenant. To the end
of the work, the idea that we are reading a homily rather than a commentary
continues to haunt us.
It appears that many chapters in the latter part of Exodus are not dealt with
at all, and, if one were expecting a commentary that follows the course of the
biblical narrative, the commentary would appear quite disordered. I believe
that the explanation for this situation lies in the subject matter of the book of
Exodus. First of all, the same event happens twice: Moses has to go and
receive the law on two different occasions. These two occasions are closely
connected but the chronological order is in fact broken up by the long
description of the Tabernacle and the sacrifices. An exegete may feel called
upon to bring together what seems to have become separated. More impor-
tant, however, is the fact that there are fewer themes of universal interest in
Exodus than in Genesis, with its description of the Creation, the Fall and the
stories of the Patriarchs. As a reader, it is more difficult to identify with the
grumbling people in the desert, than with someone like Abraham. Thus
Eusebius is not interested in the particulars of the trek through the desert, but
rather selects the themes which do have importance for him: the way God
deals with Moses, how He treats sin and, in particular, the fact that all this,
even laws which may seem harsh, demonstrates that God is benevolent and
merciful.
Although one may maintain that the texts are used for purposes of expla-
nation, rather than being explained themselves, this does not mean that Euse-
bius has betrayed the Antiochene principles in the second part of his com-
mentary. The interpretation of the texts he cites, is still restricted to the
historical level as defined above. It is precisely this which explains his lim-
itations: at the historical level, the descriptions of the Tabernacle and the sac-
rifices are not particularly interesting for him as a Christian, and since he
opposes allegorism, he is not able to use these passages for any other purpose.
It is Theodore, more than half a century later, who first couches, it seems, an
allegorical interpretation in an acceptable, that is, typological form, thereby
restoring sense to this passage for the Antiochenes13. We can illustrate this
point by placing the Commentary on Exodus within a wider context. Thus
Origen, whose philological work must have been a source of inspiration for
Eusebius, faithfully follows the order of the book until the desert episode.
Then he selects themes which he finds interesting, abandoning the order of
13
See for this text R. Devreesse, Essai sur Théodore de Mopsueste (Studi e Testi 141 ; Vati-
can City, 1948), pp. 25-27. Gennadius (PC 85, 1663-1666) and Théodore! (Theodoreti Cyrensis
Quaestiones in Octateuchum, éd. N. Fernandez Marcos and A. Sàenz-Badillos (Textos y Estu-
dios 'Cardenal Cisneros'; Madrid, 1979), Quaestio 60 in Exodum, pp. 139-144) also give a typo-
logical interpretation.
118 R.B. TER HAAR ROMENY
14
Origène. Homélies sur l'Exode, ed. et trans. M. Borret (SC 321; Paris, 1985).
15
See for example Diestel, Geschichte, pp. 137-139 and A. Hamack and W. Möllert, 'Antio-
chenische Schule', RE \ (3rd ed.; Leipzig, 1896), (592-595) p. 595.
16
A thorough description of Ephrem's position vis-à-vis the Antiochene School may be
found in Van Rompay, 'Antiochene Biblical Interpretation'.
17
Sancti Ephraem Syri in Genesim et in Exodum Commentarii, ed. R.M. Tonneau (CSCO
152/Syr 71 ; Louvain, 1995); trans, idem (CSCO 153/Syr 72; Louvain, 1995). French translation:
'Commentaire de l'Exode par Saint Ephrem', trans. P. Féghali, Parole de l'Orient 12 (1984-
1985), pp. 91-151. English translation by Amar: St. Ephrem the Syrian. Selected Prose Works,
trans. E.G. Mathews, jr., J.P. Amar and K. McVey (The Fathers of the Church 91; Washington,
1994), pp. 215-265. On this commentary, see A. Salvesen, 'The Exodus Commentary of
St. Ephrem' in E.A. Livingstone (ed.), SP 25 (Louvain, 1993), pp. 332-338.
18
The last part of the commentary has always been thought lost, but in keeping with the fore-
going, we may perhaps assume that Exod 35-40 was not dealt with at all.
Early Antiochene Commentaries on Exodus 119
Acacius of Caesarea
There is very little on which to assess the relation between Eusebius and
Acacius in Exodus: Devreesse19 gives only two fragments of the work of the
latter. If these two texts, probably taken from a book of auu-niKta CrjtfiuaTa,
are representative of his work, we may conclude that he was interested in the
same topics as Eusebius: he goes into the matter of Pharaoh's hard-heartedness,
and also refers to the retribution of errors in connection with Exod 20:5-6.
There are also many similarities in the method and the questions asked. In the
text on retribution, for example, Eusebius and Acacius cite largely the same
texts from Ezekiel and Deuteronomy. Yet their answers are not completely the
same: Eusebius places greater stress on individual human responsibility than
Acacius does. The similarities in the problems posed and the method may be
due to the fact that they had the same teacher, Eusebius of Caesarea.
Diodore of Tarsus
Conclusion
Vol. XXIX
I. HISTORICA
Vol. XXX
M. DULAEY, Amiens
L'exégèse patristique de Gn 13 et la mosaïque de la séparation
d'Abraham et de Lot à Santa Maria Maggiore (Rome) 3
Sr. EDMÉE, SLG, Oxford
'Love' or 'Breasts' at Song of Songs 1:2 and 4? The Pre-Masoretic
Evidence 8
Josef FRICKEL, Graz
Hippolyts von Rom Kommentar zum Buch Ruth 12
Table of Contents
V. ASCETICA
VI. LITURGICA
A. GELSTON, Durham
The Intercessions in the East Syrian Anaphoras of Theodore and
Nestorius 306
Andrew McGowAN, Notre Dame, Indiana
Naming the feast: The agape and the diversity of early Christian meal 314
Richard W. PFAFF, Chapel Hill, NC
The Patristic Diet of Cranmer's Generation 319
Carl P.E. SPRINGER, Normal, Illinois
Nicetas and the Authorship of the Te Deum 325
Niki J. TsiRONis, London
George of Nicomedia: Convention and Originality in the Homily on
Good Friday 332
M.F. WILES, Oxford
Triple and Single Immersion: Baptism in the Arian Controversy 337
R.D. WILLIAMS, Newport
Angels Unawares: Heavenly Liturgy and Earthly Theology in
Alexandria 350
Graham WOOLFENDEN, Oxford
Daily Prayer: Its Origin in its Function 364
D.F. WRIGHT, Edinburgh
At What Ages were People Baptized in the Early Centuries? 389
Edward YARNOLD, SJ, Oxford
Anaphoras without Institution Narratives? 395
Vol. XXXI
VII. PREACHING
Vol. XXXII
_
Table of Contents
Hilarion ALFEYEV
The Patristic Background of St. Symeon the New Theologian's Doc-
trine of the Divine Light 229
Wolfgang A. BIENERT, Marburg
Origenes im Werk des Epiphanius von Salamis 239
Paul M. BLOWERS, Johnson City, Tenn.
Realized Eschatology in Maximus the Confessor, Ad Thalassium
22 258
Marie-Odile BOULNOIS, Nantes
Platon entre Moïse et Arius selon le Contre Julien de Cyrille
d'Alexandrie 264
Peter BRUNS, Bochum
Das Offenbarungsverständnis Theodors von Mopsuestia im Zwölf-
prophetenkommentar 272
Ysabel DE ANDIA, Paris
La Théologie trinitaire de Denys l'Areopagite 278
Roland DELMAIRE, Lilie
Jean Chrysostome et ses 'amis' d'après le nouveau classement de
sa correspondance 302
Hamilton HESS, San Francisco
Soteriological Motifs in the Catechetical Lectures of St. Cyril of
Jerusalem 314
Valerie A. KARRAS, Brookline, Mass.
The Incarnational and Hypostatic Significance of the Maleness of
Jesus Christ according to Theodore of Stoudios 320
Jacques LISON, OP, Ottawa
L'Esprit comme amour selon Grégoire Palamas: Une influence au-
gustinienne? 325
Andrew LOUTH, London
St. Maximus the Confessor between East and West 332
Simon C. MIMOUNI, Paris
L'Hypomnesticon de Joseph de Tibéride: une œuvre du IVème
Siècle? 346
John J. O'KEEFE, Omaha, Nebraska
Kenosis or Impassibility: Cyril of Alexandria and Theodoret of Cyrus
on the Problem of Divine Pathos 358
José Simon PALMER, Barcelona
John Moschus as a Source for the Lives of St. Symeon and St.
Andrew the Fools 366
J.L. STEWARDSON, Adrian, Minn.
Vision of God according to Theodoret of Cyrus 371
Table of Contents
Vol. XXXIII
XV. JEROME
Aline CANELLIS, Saint-Etienne
Saint Jérôme et VAltercatio Luciferiani et Orthodoxi: 'A nimia
salsitate Sardorum" 289
I.J. DAVIDSON, St. Andrews
Pastoral Theology at the End of the Fourth Century: Ambrose and
Jerome 295
Bazyli DEGÓRSKI, OSPPE, Rome
Un Nuovo Indizio per la Datazione della Vita S. Pauli di Girolamo?. 302
Susanna ELM, Berkeley, California
The Polemical Use of Genealogies: Jerome's Classication of Pelagius
and Evagrius Ponticus 311
E. Glenn HINSON, Richmond, Virginia
Women Biblical Scholars in the Late Fourth Century: The Aventine
Circle... 319
Table of Contents
XVII. ORIENTALIA