TheMinorProphetsasChristianScriptureinthe CommentariesofTheodoreofMopsuestiaandCyril ofAlexandriaHaunaTOndrey
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-minor-prophets-aschristian-scripture-in-the-commentaries-of-theodore-ofmopsuestia-and-cyril-of-alexandria-hauna-t-ondrey/
Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) ready for you
Download now and discover formats that fit your needs...
The Minor Prophets J. Glen Taylor
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-minor-prophets-j-glen-taylor/
ebookmass.com
Philo of Alexandria and the construction of Jewishness in early Christian writings First Edition, Impression: 1. Edition Jennifer Otto
https://ebookmass.com/product/philo-of-alexandria-and-theconstruction-of-jewishness-in-early-christian-writings-first-editionimpression-1-edition-jennifer-otto/ ebookmass.com
Visions of the Buddha: Creative Dimensions of Early Buddhist Scripture Eviatar Shulman
https://ebookmass.com/product/visions-of-the-buddha-creativedimensions-of-early-buddhist-scripture-eviatar-shulman/ ebookmass.com
Fitness for Life 6th Edition, (Ebook PDF)
https://ebookmass.com/product/fitness-for-life-6th-edition-ebook-pdf/
ebookmass.com
Antônio: Vampires in Europe (Vampires in America Book 15) D. B. Reynolds
https://ebookmass.com/product/antonio-vampires-in-europe-vampires-inamerica-book-15-d-b-reynolds/
ebookmass.com
The Consulting Bible Alan Weiss
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-consulting-bible-alan-weiss/
ebookmass.com
Pharmacology for Rehabilitation Professionals E Book 2nd Edition, (Ebook PDF)
https://ebookmass.com/product/pharmacology-for-rehabilitationprofessionals-e-book-2nd-edition-ebook-pdf/
ebookmass.com
Medical and Psychosocial Aspects of Chronic Illness and Disability (Ebook PDF)
https://ebookmass.com/product/medical-and-psychosocial-aspects-ofchronic-illness-and-disability-ebook-pdf/
ebookmass.com
Maths in focus. Year 12 : mathematics extension 2 Janet Hunter
https://ebookmass.com/product/maths-in-focus-year-12-mathematicsextension-2-janet-hunter/
ebookmass.com
The Power of Keeping Your Mouth Shut in an Endlessly
https://ebookmass.com/product/stfu-the-power-of-keeping-your-mouthshut-in-an-endlessly-noisy-world-dan-lyons/
ebookmass.com
OXFORDEARLYCHRISTIANSTUDIES GeneralEditors GillianClarkAndrewLouth
THEOXFORDEARLYCHRISTIANSTUDIESseriesincludesscholarly volumesonthethoughtandhistoryoftheearlyChristiancenturies. CoveringawiderangeofGreek,Latin,andOrientalsources,thebooksare ofinteresttotheologians,ancienthistorians,andspecialistsintheclassicaland Jewishworlds.
Titlesintheseriesinclude:
SocialJusticeandtheLegitimacyofSlavery
TheRoleofPhilosophicalAsceticismfrom AncientJudaismtoLateAntiquity
IlariaL.E.Ramelli(2016)
MakingAmuletsChristian Artefacts,Scribes,andContexts
TheodoredeBruyn(2017)
IsaacofNineveh’sAsceticalEschatology
JasonScully(2017)
LiturgyandByzantinizationinJerusalem DanielGaladza(2017)
TheRomanMartyrs Introduction,Translations,andCommentary
MichaelLapidge(2017)
GregoryofNyssa’sDoctrinalWorks ALiteraryStudy
AndrewRadde-Gallwitz(2018)
StTheodoretheStudite’sDefenceoftheIcons TheologyandPhilosophyinNinth-CenturyByzantium
TorsteinTheodorTollefsen(2018)
PhiloofAlexandriaandtheConstructionofJewishness inEarlyChristianWritings JenniferOtto(2018)
TheDonatistChurchinanApocalypticAge
JesseA.Hoover(2018)
TheMinorProphetsas ChristianScripturein theCommentariesof Theodoreof MopsuestiaandCyril ofAlexandria HAUNAT.ONDREY GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP, UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries ©HaunaT.Ondrey2018
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted FirstEditionpublishedin2018
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress 198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2017961516
ISBN978–0–19–882453–4
Printedandboundby CPIGroup(UK)Ltd,Croydon,CR04YY
Acknowledgments Itisapleasuretoacknowledgemyindebtednesstothecommunity ofmentors,colleagues,friends,andfamilythathasmadethiswork possible.
Thisbookbeganasadoctoralthesis,forthecompletionofwhich IowedeepgratitudetoMarkW.Elliott,whosesupervisionexemplifiedwisdomandcare.I’madditionallythankfulforcolleagueswho sharedtheupsanddownsofthePhDjourneyattheUniversityof StAndrews,especiallymyBlackRoomcompanions,LoeJooTan, SarahMaple,TanyaWalker,GarrickAllen,andMiltonNúñez-Coba, aswellasRosannaAlderson,JenGilbertson,HaleyGoranson,and AndrewandSusanCowan.
I’mgratefultoPhilipJ.AndersonandBradleyNassifforintroducingmetotheFathersandsupportingmealongtheway;toallmy colleaguesatNorthParkTheologicalSeminary,withspecialthanks toMichelleClifton-Soderstrom,StephenChester,anddeanDavid Kersten;totheologicallibrarianSteveSpencerforalwaysprovidinga researchroomandtimelycounsel;andtotheBrandelLibraryinterlibraryloanstaffforincreasingtheirworkloadonmybehalf.
FatherJohnBehrprovidedsubstantiveadviceandencouragement, bothasexternalthesisreaderandthroughoutthepublicationprocess,anddeservesmythanks.ManythanksalsototheOxfordEarly ChristianStudieseditorsandexternalreaderforespeciallyuseful feedbackthatmadethisworkfarbetterthanmyinitialsubmission.
ThroughouttheresearchandwritingprocessIhavereliedonthe steadyloveofmyentirefamily,especiallymyparents,JeffOndrey andSaliHoness-Ondrey,andsisterSarah.Myhusband,CarlAnders Johnson,hasbeenbehindmeateachstep,providingencouragement, perspective,andunconditionalsupport.Finally,mythanksgoto ScotMcKnight,towhomthisbookisdedicated,forgivingmeearly opportunitiesthatoutmatchedmyexperience.Inthissmallway, Ihopetorepayyourconfidence.
Abbreviations xi
Introduction:TheodoreandCyrilinContext1
PartI.OneDivineEconomyinTwoTestaments
1.ANexusofCommentatorsontheTwelve: TheodoreandCyril’sDefenseof Historia 49
PartII.TheMinistryoftheTwelveProphets toOldTestamentIsrael
2.TheodoreofMopsuestia:TheTwelvewithin theFirstAge75
3.CyrilofAlexandria:TheTwelvewithintheFirst Covenant118
PartIII.TheMinistryoftheTextsoftheTwelve totheChurch
4.TheodoreofMopsuestia:TheTwelveas ChristianScripture147
5.CyrilofAlexandria:TheTwelveasChristianScripture167
PartIV.Conclusion:TheTwelvebetweenTwoTestaments
6.TheodoreandCyrilinDialogue:Analysis andImplications215
Abbreviations ACO ActaConciliorumOecumenicorum
CCGCorpusChristianorumSeriesGraeca
CCLCorpusChristianorumSeriesLatina
CCRCopticChurchReview
CSCOCorpusScriptorumChristianorumOrientalium
ETEnglishtranslation
FOTCFathersoftheChurch
GCSDiegriechischenchristlichenSchriftstellerderersten Jahrhunderte
HeyJHeythropJournal
IJSCCInternationalJournalfortheStudyoftheChristianChurch
JECSJournalofEarlyChristianStudies
JETSJournaloftheEvangelicalTheologicalSociety
JTSJournalofTheologicalStudies
LCLLoebClassicalLibrary
LXXSeptuagint
OECSOxfordEarlyChristianStudies
OECTOxfordEarlyChristianTexts
PGPatrologiaGraeca
PLPatrologiaLatina
POPatrologiaOrientalis
ProEcclProEcclesia
RBRevueBiblique
RSRRecherchesdesciencereligieuse
SC SourcesChrétiennes
SESacrisErudiri
STStudietesti
StPStudiaPatristica
TLGThesaurusLinguaeGraecae
TZTheologischeZeitschrift
VCVigilaeChristianae
VCSupSupplementstoVigilaeChristianae
VetCVeteraChristianorum
WGRWWritingsfromtheGreco-RomanWorld
WTJWestminsterTheologicalJournal
ZNWZeitschriftfürdieneutestamentlicheWissenschaftunddie KundederälterenKirche
Introduction TheodoreandCyrilinContext CYRILAGAINSTTHEODORE WhenTheodoreofMopsuestiaandCyrilofAlexandriaareconsidered together,itisusuallyaschristolog icalantagonists.Andrightlyso: whilealive,CyrilactivelycampaignedagainstTheodore,andhis polemicalwritingsplayedasu bstantialroleinTheodore ’ ssixthcenturycondemnation.¹
In432RabboulaofEdessa(411–436)orderedTheodore’swritings destroyed,²recruitingCyriltohiscausewhenhiscampaignagainst TheodoremetresistancefromJohnofAntiochandothereastern bishops.CyrilhadalreadynamedDiodoretherootofNestorius’ s faultyChristology,³andhelearnedfromRabboulathatTheodoretoo borethisguilt,venerationofhimcausingtheoutbreakofapreviously hiddendisease.⁴ Cyrilsubsequentlyjoinedinthecampaign,writing againstTheodorebyname, fi rstinanexpositionontheNicene
¹ForthepathfromEphesus(431)toConstantinopleII(553),seeespeciallyintroductorychaptersbyRichardPrice,trans.,intro., TheActsoftheCouncilofConstantinopleof553:WithRelatedTextsontheThreeChaptersControversy,2vols.,Translated TextsforHistorians51(Liverpool:LiverpoolUniversityPress,2009),esp.introductory chapters,pp.1–108,andintroductorytextsthroughout;JohnBehr, TheCaseAgainst DiodoreandTheodore:TextsandTheirContexts,OECT(Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press,2011),83–158.
²ThecampaignisknownfromIbasofEdessa’slettertoMarithePersian,ACO2.1, pp.391–3,ETPrice2:6–10.
³ Ep.45,ACO1.1.6,pp.151–7.CyrilnamesDiodoreNestorius’steacherinparagraph2, charginghimwithdividingtheSonofGodandsonofDavid(par.2,p.151.17–19).ET Wickham70–83.
⁴ Ep. 73,ACO4.1,SessionV.23(p.89),ETFOTC77:75–6.
2 TheMinorProphetsasChristianScripture Creed, ⁵ followedbyhis438treatises AgainstDiodore andtwo AgainstTheodore . ⁶ InhisappealtoTheodosiusII,Cyrilstated hispositionconcisely,namingDiodoreandTheodorethe “ fathers ofNestorius ’ sblasphemies ”⁷ andchargingtheeasternbishopswith condemningNestorius ’ serrorswhilereintroducingthembygiving honortohispredecessors. ⁸ Theodorewasultimatelycondemned atConstantinopleII(553),whereCyril ’ spolemicalworkssubstantiallycomprisedthecompileddossiermarshalledagainstTheodore bythebishopsgathered. ⁹ JohnBehrhasevenarguedforCyrilas theauthorofthecommon florilegiumofTheodore’sindictedworks usedatthefourthand fifthsessionsofConstantinople.¹⁰ Inshort, Theodorewascondemned,andCyril,inpersonandinwritings,was partytohiscondemnation.¹¹
ThoughtheThreeChaptersControversycenteredonChristology, Theodore’sOldTestamentinterpretationwasalsoimplicatedinthe conciliardeliberations.TheindictedfragmentsconcernTheodore’ s dividingthe homoassumptus and verbumassumens inhisinterpretationofPsalm8,¹²denialofSongofSongsasachristologicalallegory,¹³ andassertionofpaganinterpolationinthebookofJob.¹⁴ Regardingthe propheticbooksspecifically,thecouncilnotedTheodore’srefusalof standardchristologicaltestimonia¹⁵ andintroducedtheexcerptsfrom the CommentaryontheMinorProphets as “thecommentarythathe wroteonthetwelveprophets,denyingthattheprophecieswereabout
⁵ Ep.55,ACO1.1.4,pp.49–61,namingTheodorewithNestorius,pp.60.41–61.2.
⁶ ExtantonlyascitationsinsubsequentpolemicalworksandtheActsofConstantinopleII.SeechartofcitationsofCyril’ s AgainstTheodore assembledbyBehr, Case,148–9; ContraDiodorumetTheodorum,PG76.1437–52.
⁷ Ep. 71,ACO1.4,p.211.1–2. ⁸ Ep. 71,ACO1.4,p.211.5–8.
⁹ SeeACO4.1,SessionV.5–13(pp.74–82),18–21(pp.86–8),38(p.96),53–5 (pp.101–2),66–81(pp.105–11);Behr, Case,133–58,418–29.
¹
⁰ Aswellasinthe BlasphemiesofDiodore,Theodore,andtheImpiousNestorius andbyTimothyAelurus,LeontiusofByzantium,andEmperorJustinian.Behr, Case, 155–8,reconstructsthetransmission.
¹¹ThoughitshouldbenotedthatCyril,inalettertoProclusattheendofthe fifthcenturycontroversies,advisedagainstcondemningTheodore’spersoninadditionto hiserrors,citingfearofschismonaccountofthereverencewithwhichTheodorewas held(Ep. 72,ACO4.1,SessionV.77,pp.109–10) JohnofAntiochevenpreferringto throwhimselfin firethananathematizeTheodore(Ep. 72.78,p.110.20–1).
¹²ACO4.1,SessionIV.25(pp.52–3),ETPrice1:245.
¹³ACO4.1,SessionIV.77,78,79,80(pp.68–70),ETPrice1:264–7.
¹
¹
⁴ ACO4.1,SessionIV.73,74,75,76(pp.67–8),ETPrice1:262–4.
⁵ ACO4.1,SessionIV.27,28,29,30(pp.53–5),ETPrice1:246–8.
Christ.”¹⁶ The finalsessionofthecouncilincludedinitssummaryof theprecedinghearingregardingTheodorethathe “rejectedthepropheciesaboutChristandwaseager,asfaraspertainedtohimself,todeny thegreatmysteryofthedispensationofoursalvation.”¹⁷ Facundusof Hermaine’sdefenseofTheodore’schristologicalinterpretationof prophecycorroboratestheCouncil’scharge.¹⁸
TheincreasedattentiongiventotheinterplaybetweenTheodore’ s Christologyandhisinterpretationofscripturefollowsabroadertrend towardappreciationoftheintegralroleofbiblicalexegesisintheologicaldebate ifindeedthetwocanbeseparatedatall.Inan “ anage whichsawtheologyexegeticallyandexegesistheologically,”¹⁹“theology is interpretationoftheBible.”²⁰ Thisappreciationhasinturnencouragedincreasedscholarlyattentiontopatristicinterpretation what RobertWilkenin1965termeda “frontier” inChristianhistory.²¹Both TheodoreandCyrilhavebenefittedfromthistrendtorecognizethe churchfathersasbiblicalinterpreters.Theconsensusyieldsstrikingly oppositeportraitsofthetwoasOldTestamentinterpreters.The minimalchristologicalinterpretationthatappearsinTheodore’sOld Testamentcommentariesisobservedashisdistinctivefeature.²²Cyril, bycontrast,isdescribedasapre-eminently “christocentric” interpreter
¹
¹
¹
⁶ ACO4.1,SessionIV.26(p.53),ETPrice1:245.
⁷ ACO4.1,SessionVIII.4.9(p.210.20–1),ETPrice1:113.
⁸ FacundusofHermaine, Prodef. 3.6,SC478:97–129.
¹
⁹ RobertWilken, “ExegesisandtheHistoryofTheology:Reflectionsonthe Adam-ChristTypologyinCyrilofAlexandria,” CH 35(1966):155.
²
⁰ RobertWilken, “CyrilofAlexandria,BiblicalExegete,” in HandbookofPatristic Exegesis:TheBibleinAncientChristianity,vol.2,ed.CharlesKannengiesser(Leiden: Brill,2004),843,myemphasis.Cf.FrancesYoung, BiblicalExegesisandtheFormation ofChristianCulture (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1997),4,265;Lewis Ayres, NicaeaandItsLegacy:AnApproachtoFourth-CenturyTrinitarianTheology (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2004),31–40, “EarlyChristiansdidnotdistinguish ‘exegesis’ and ‘theology’ inthewaythatmodernscholarstendtodo,” 38.
²¹Wilken, “ExegesisandtheHistoryofTheology,” 142,156;alsoas “oneofthestep childrenofChurchHistory,” p.139.
²²WhethercelebratedasanavoidanceofanachronisticallyimportingChrist intoIsrael’sscripture(soDimitriZ.Zaharopoulos, TheodoreofMopsuestiaonthe Bible:AStudyofHisOldTestamentExegesis [NewYork:PaulistPress,1989], passim,seeespeciallychapter6, “OldTestamentMessianicExpectationsasInterpretedbyTheodoreofMopsuestia,” pp.142–75,andhiseighthconcludingpoint, p.183)orcensuredasafailuretoofferareadingthatisChristianinanymeaningful sense(soJohnJ.O’Keefe, “‘ALetterthatKilleth’:TowardaReassessmentof AntiocheneExegesis,orDiodore,Theodore,andTheodoretonthePsalms,” JECS 8:1[2000]:83–104).
oftheOldTestament.²³Isitanywonderthatthetwostoodon oppositesidesofaconciliarverdictthatfoundTheodore’sinterpretationoftheprophetschristologicallyinadequate?²⁴
Someimportantrecentstudieshaveattendedtotheinterplayof exegesisandChristologyinTheodore’sconciliarcondemnation.²⁵ ThestudiesofJohnO’KeefeandJohnBehrespeciallynotethat ConstantinopleIIjudgedtheChristologicalreticenceofTheodore’ s OldTestamentexegesisratherlessfavorablythanthetwentiethcenturyscholarswhocelebratedTheodoreasproto-historicalcritic.
AsO’KeefeandBehrreadthecouncil’sdecision,becauseTheodore didnotrecognizeChristasthesubjectoftheOldTestament,his interpretationseveredthestoryofIsraelfromtheChristianeconomy. Behr findsTheodoreincapableofunitingtheTestamentsbecausehe failstoreadChristasthecontentoftheOldTestament,instead readingthetwoTestamentsas “distinct historia. ”²⁶ Behrgoesfurther topositthishermeneuticaldistinctionasthesourceofTheodore’ s failuretouniteChrist’snaturesadequately.²⁷ InO’Keefe’ s final assessment,Theodore’sinterpretationoftheOldTestament “failed
²³Cyril’ s “christocentrism” providestheorganizingprincipleforBertrandde Margerie’ssurvey( “SaintCyrilofAlexandriaDevelopsaChristocentricExegesis,” AnIntroductiontotheHistoryofExegesis,vol.1,trans.LeonardMaluf[Petersham, MA:SaintBede’sPublications,1993],244),andLuisArmendárizobservesCyril’ s “obsesióncristocéntrica” withinhisOldTestamentinterpretation ” (ElNuevoMoisés: DinámicachristocéntricaenlatipologíadeCiriloAlejandrino [Madrid:EdicionesFax, 1962],104).Moreover, “Deahí[i.e.,Cyril’sexegeticalchristocentrism]derivacierta monotonia, ” p.103,emphasisoriginal.AccordingtoWilken, “[Cyril’s]biblicalwritingsarecommentariesonChristandonlyifonereadstheminthatspiritcanone appreciatehissignificanceasinterpreteroftheBible.” Wilken, “St.CyrilofAlexandria: TheMysteryofChristintheBible,” ProEccl 4(1995):478;cf. “CyrilofAlexandriaas InterpreteroftheOldTestament,” in TheTheologyofSt.CyrilofAlexandria:ACritical Appreciation,ed.ThomasG.WeinandyandDanielA.Keating(London&NewYork: T&TClark,2003),21; “CyrilofAlexandria,BiblicalExegete,” 865.
²⁴ Iwishtochallengetheaccuracyofthesegeneralizations.Nevertheless,they pointtoarealandnotablecontrastinthedegreeofchristologicalinterpretationin Theodore’sandCyril’sOldTestamentcommentaries.
²⁵ PeterBruns, “DasOffenbarungsverständnisTheodorsvonMopsuestiaimZwölfprophetenkommentar,” StP 32(1997):272–7;O’Keefe, “Letter,” seeespeciallypp.84, 93;Behr, Case,esp.35,40–7,66–82.GoingbacktoJ.-M.Vosté, “L’oeuvreexégétiquede ThéodoredeMopsuesteauIIe ConciledeConstantinople,” RB 38(1929):382–95, 542–54.
²⁶ Behr, Case,45, “ThenoveltyofboththeexegesisandChristologicalreflectionof DiodoreandTheodorewasthattheytreatedtheOldTestamentasadistinct historia fromtheNew,andconsequentially ‘theman’ asadistinctsubjectfromtheWord.” Cf. O’Keefe, “Letter,” 85,forthesameconclusion.
²⁷ Behr, Case,45.
preciselybecauseitdidnotappreciatehowcentralaChrist-centered figuralreadingoftheOldTestamentwastoitsappropriationbythe Christianchurch.”²⁸ InthejudgmentofbothBehrandO’Keefe,this failureaccountsfornotonlytheconciliarverdictof553butalsothe fourth-centuryexegeticalconflictbetweenAntiochandAlexandria, withCyrilservingastherepresentativeAlexandrian.Inthisway,the tworeframetheAntioch/Alexandrianantithesisbyforegrounding polemic against DiodoreandTheodoreratherthanAntiochenecritiqueofallegoricalinterpretation.SoinO’Keefe’sassessment, “From Cyril’spointofview,itwouldappearthattheexegesisofDiodore andTheodorewasnotmethodologically flawed;itwassimplynot Christianenough. ”²⁹
FullcommentariesontheMinorProphetsbybothTheodoreand Cyrilremainextant Theodore’sonlyworkextantintheoriginal Greek³⁰—andhaveyettobecomparedintheirentirety.³¹Becausethe
²⁸ O’Keefe, “Letter,” 96.O’Keefe’sfocusisTheodore’s(andDiodore’s)interpretationofthePsalms,fromwhichhedrawsgeneralizationsaboutAntiocheneexegesis morebroadly.Thoughwithmodifications,bothLewisAyresandJohnBehrcite O’Keefe’sarticleapprovinglyandbuilduponit,Ayres, Nicaea,31–40(mentioned explicitlyin31,n.67);Behr, Case,37–42.
²⁹ JohnO’Keefe, “ChristianizingMalachi:Fifth-CenturyInsightsfromCyrilof Alexandria,” VC 50:2(1996):141.Cf. “Letter,” 93, “Thedifferencebetween,say, TheodoreandCyrilwasnotsomuchthattheformersetthePsalmswithinthehistorical contextofKingswhilethelatterdidnot.Thedifferencewas,rather,thatTheodore limitedthe ‘skopos’ ofthePsalmstothecontextoftheBookofKingswhileCyril extendedittoincludeChrist,theChurch,andtheentireChristianlife.”
³⁰ CommentariesontheMajorProphetsarementionedintheSyriacchronicles butarenotavailableinfragments,noraretheymentionedintheGreekhistories, CouncilActs,orbyTheodorehimself.
³¹Theonlyfullcomparativestudy,thoughlimitedtotheircommentarieson Habakkuk,comesfromTimothyEdwardSaleska, “CyrilofAlexandriaandtheLiteral InterpretationofScripture:AnAnalysisofCyril’ s CommentariusinHabacuc, ” (PhD diss.,HebrewUnionCollege JewishInstituteofReligion,1999).Saleskaoffersa verse-by-versecomparisonofCyril’ s CommentaryonHabakkuk withthoseofTheodore,Theodoret,andJeromeinordertoestablishCyril’sdirectdependencesand describethemethodologyofhisliteralinterpretation.Anumberofarticlesconsider moreisolatedcases.ThebestandmostcomprehensivestudyisstillManlioSimonetti, “Notesull’esegesiveterotestamentariadiTeodorodiMopsuestia,” VetC 14(1977): 69–102; “NotesulcommentodiCirilloaiprofetiminori,” VetC 14(1977):303–30.Cf. RobertC.Hill, “ZechariahinAlexandriaandAntioch,” Augustinianum-Roma 48:2 (2008):323–44;AlWolters, “Zechariah14andBiblicalTheology:Patristicand ContemporaryCaseStudies, ” in OutofEgypt:BiblicalTheologyandBiblicalInterpretation,ed.CraigBartholomewetal.,ScriptureandHermeneuticsSeries5(Grand Rapids:Zondervan,2004),261–85;Wolters, “Zechariah14:ADialoguewiththe HistoryofInterpretation,” Mid-AmericaJournalofTheology 13(2002):39–56.
prophetsserveashinge figures,anticipatingthesecondstageofthe divineeconomyfromtheirpositionwithinthe first,Theodore’sand Cyril’scommentariesontheMinorProphetsprovideanespecially usefulpointofentryintohoweachrelatesthetwoTestaments, historicallyandscripturally.TheirinterpretationofOldTestament prophecyoffersaprivilegedwindowintohowtheyconceiveofsacred historyasawholeaswellastheepistemicdimensionofthetwostages ofthathistory,towhichbothhavebeenshowntobeparticularly attentive.³²Thecommentariesofferfurtheranextendedtesting groundforhowthisconceptionimpactstheirOldTestamentinterpretationpractically notsimplyinprogrammaticstatementsbut overthecourseoffull,extensivecommentary.
THETWELVEBETWEENTWOTESTAMENTS BothTheodoreandCyrilviewthebooksoftheTwelveastextsthat recordandbearwitnesstosacredhistoryandthereforeshouldbe interpretedaccordingtothisoverarchingnarrative.ForbothinterpreterstheMinorProphetsarealsotextshavingpresentvalueforthe Christiancommunity.MystudyconsidersinturnhowTheodoreand CyrilseetheTwelvefunctioninginthesetwocapacities:(1)intheir ministrytoOldTestamentIsraeland(2)intheirministrytothe fourth-and fifth-centurychurchasChristianscripture.
AttemptingtoisolateTheodore’sandCyril’sviewsoftheprospective(historical)andretrospective(scriptural)roleoftheMinor Prophetsinthiswayisadmittedlysomewhatartificial,particularly inthecaseofCyril.Nevertheless,Ijudgetheclarificationgained inisolatingtheirthoughtinthiswaywarrantswhatitpotentially
³²OnthecentralthemesoftransformationandnewnessinChristwithinCyril’ s corpus,seeespeciallyRobertWilken, JudaismandtheEarlyChristianMind:AStudy ofCyrilofAlexandria’sExegesisandTheology (NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress, 1971),referencetotheMinorProphetscommentaryatp.86,n.50.Forextended discussionofTheodore’sDoctrineoftheTwoAges,itstheologicalimplications, andkeytextsfromhiscommentariesonPaul(minorPaulineepistlesandcatena fragmentsonRomansandHebrews),seeRichardA.Norris, ManhoodandChrist: AStudyintheChristologyofTheodoreofMopsuestia (Oxford:ClarendonPress,1963), 160–72;RowanA.Greer, TheCaptainofOurSalvation:AStudyinthePatristic ExegesisofHebrews (Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,1973),178–223;Simonetti, “Note Teodoro,” 93–102.
Introduction:TheodoreandCyrilinContext obscures.Theodore’sandCyril’sstylesofcommentaryobscurepreciselythisdistinctioninoppositeways,leadingtomischaracterizationsoftherelationshipeachseesbetweenOldTestamentprophecy andChrist,ascribingtoolittlechristologicalcontenttoTheodore’ s interpretationofOldTestamentprophecyandtoomuchtoCyril’ s.
Theodore’sinterpretationoftheprophetsrarelymakesexplicit mentionofChrist.Thishasledtotheinaccurateconclusionthat hedisallowsmessianicprophecyentirely.ManystudiessubsumeTheodore’schristologicalinterpretationunderretrospectiveaccommodation ortypology,³³enablingtheerroneousverdictthat, “Strictlyspeaking ... OldTestamentprophecyinTheodore’sjudgmentisnotpredictive ofChrist.”³⁴ ArelatedchargeisthatTheodore’sOldTestamentcommentariesoffernoexplicitlyChristianmeaningfromtheprophetic textsandevidencehislackofinterestindoingso.InSimonetti’sview, forTheodoretheprophetsareconfinedtotheFirstAgeandtherefore “havenorealmeaningandvaluewithrespecttothenewphaseof thepresentagewhichbeganwiththeIncarnation.”³⁵ O’Keefeconcludes thatTheodore’sreaderis “hardpressedto findanythingparticularly Christian” inhisbiblicalcommentary.³⁶ Acloserreadingshowsthat(1) Theodore does affirmmessianicprophecyand(2)amuchfulleraccount canbeofferedoftheChristianvaluehe findsintheprophetictexts. Cyril’sinterpretation,bycontrast,rangeseasilyandunannounced fromthetimeoftheprophets,toChrist,to fifth-centuryAlexandria.
³³E.g.,RowanGreer, TheodoreofMopsuestia:ExegeteandTheologian (Westminster: TheFaithPress,1961),109–10;JohnBreck, ThePoweroftheWordintheWorshiping Church (Crestwood,NY:St.Vladimir’sSeminaryPress,1986),83;FrederickG.McLeod, TheRolesofChrist’sHumanityinSalvation:InsightsfromTheodoreofMopsuestia (Washington,DC:TheCatholicUniversityofAmericaPress,2005),20–57,esp.47–57. Behr, Case,75,seemstoassumethesamecollapseintreatingAbrahamandDavidas typesratherthandistinguishingGod’spromisestothemasprophecy.Sayingheretoo thatthetypes “intimatetherealitytocome,” andsummarizing, “ForTheodore,then, figureandeventsbothleadthroughtheOldCovenanttoChristandcanbeplacedin typologicalrelationshiptohim,” p.75.
³⁴ Zaharopoulos, Theodore,183.
³⁵ Simonetti, “Note ... Teodoro,” 99,mytranslation;cf.Simonetti, “Theodoreof Mopsuestia(ca.350–428),” pp.799–828in HandbookofPatristicExegesis,vol.2,ed. CharlesKannengiesser(Leiden:Brill,2004),824,n.134.
³⁶ O’Keefe, “Letter,” 96 eventhatTheodoredoes “akindofviolencetoChristian reading” (“Letter,” 84),heresummarizingsupportivelytheancientverdict,representedbyLeontius.Cf.RobertC.Hill, “TheodoreofMopsuestia,Interpreterofthe Prophets,” SE 40(2001):121; “Introduction,” TheodoreofMopsuestia,Commentary ontheTwelveProphets,22.
FailuretodistinguishwhetheraparticularcommentreferstoknowledgepriortooraftertheIncarnationleadstofaultyconclusions. Attentionhasbeendrawnrightlytotheprominentrolethethemeof transformationplaysinCyril’scommentaries.However,thishasbeen overzealouslyapplied.Cyril’semphasisonthesuperiorityoftheNew Covenant joinedwithhistendencytoblurthedistinctionbetween thetwoTestaments hasledtoanimbalancedemphasisonCyril’ s commitmenttotheLaw’sinsufficiencies³⁷ andtheerroneousclaim thatforCyriltheOldTestamentholdsChristianvalueonlyinsofaras itismodulatedintoachristologicalkey.³⁸ IsolatingCyril’sviewofthe propheticministryto anteChristum Israelrevealsthepositiverolehe ascribestheMosaiclawwithinthecontextoftheOldTestament. FocusingontheprophetsasChristianscripturerevealsCyril’sability andtendencytointerprettheOldTestamentfruitfullyinitsplain senseforthemoraledificationofthechurch.AreadingofCyril’ s MinorProphetscommentary,then,callsforanexpandeddescription ofCyrilasanOldTestamentexegete.
My finalargumentisthatTheodore’ s is aself-consciouslyChristian interpretationandthatCyril’scommentaryisrathermorewide-ranging thansomedescriptionssuggest.Thus,againstevaluationsofTheodore’sOldTestamentinterpretationassub-ChristianandCyril’ sas monotonouslychristocentric,myexpositionseekstodevelophow eachcommentatoroffersaChristianinterpretationoftheMinor Prophets,boththroughexplicitlychristologicalcontentandindependentofit.TheoriginoftheirdifferencedoesnotlieinTheodore’ s failuretounitethetwoTestamentsbutratherin how eachrelates Israel’shistoryandChrist.BecausetheyrelatetheChristianeconomy toOldTestamenthistorydifferently,theyreadtheOldTestament prophetsdifferentlyasChristianscripture.Mystudyexploresthese two,verydifferentChristianreadings.
Twopointsofbackgroundareappropriatetosituatethestudythat follows.AnycomparisonofanAntiocheneandanAlexandrianinterpreterevokesthecontestedmatterofcompeting “schools” ofexegesis, anissuesignificantlyreconfiguredinrecentdecades.Acomparisonof theMinorProphetscommentariesofTheodoreandCyrilhasfurther
³⁷ Armendáriz, ElNuevoMoisés;B.LeeBlackburn, “TheMysteryoftheSynagogue: CyrilofAlexandriaandtheLawofMoses” (PhDdiss.,UniversityofNotreDame, 2009);Wilken, JudaismandtheEarlyChristianMind. ³⁸ E.g.,Wilken, “CyrilofAlexandriaasInterpreter,” 21.Cf.n.23above. 8 TheMinorProphetsasChristianScripture
relevanceforthisquestion,andsosomepreliminarydiscussionis fitting.Briefbiographicalsketcheswillthenlocateeachinterpreter withinthebroadercommentarytradition.
ANTIOCHANDALEXANDRIA Thewaypatristicexegesiswasmappedinearlytwentieth-century scholarshiptookitsprimarycuefromspecificfourth-centuryinterpreters’ scathingcritiquesofallegory.³⁹ Theseinterpreters Eustathius, Diodore,andTheodore wereallfromAntioch;Origen,whomthey critiquedbyname,wasanAlexandrian.Thus,theprevailingmodel dividedpatristicexegesisinto “Antiochene” and “Alexandria” schools. Theschoolswerecastasdiscreteandantithetical,definedbydichotomousmethods.Thedefiningmethodofeachwasdrawnfromthe Antiochenecritiques:Alexandriansengagedin flightsofallegory, unboundbythegrammaticalboundariesofthetext,andsoviolated theintegrityofthehistoricalaccount.Bycontrast,theAntiochene commitmenttothetext’sliteralsense,andtothehistoricalintegrity oftheeventsitconveyed,causedthemtorejectAlexandrianallegory. Iftheyallowedaspiritualsenseitwasviatypology,whichallowed forasecondsensewithoutreplacingorviolatingthetext’sliteralsense. Thecharacteristicmethodsofthetwoschools,takentobemutually exclusive,wereforegroundedasthefoundationalmethodologicalchoices forpatristicinterpreters.
Anevaluationaccompaniedthisopposition,asAntiochenecommitmentto historia wasidentifiedwithmoderncommitments,and theAntiocheneswerecelebratedashistoricalcritics avantlalettre. Zaharopoulos’sassessmentisrepresentative:
InoppositiontosuchAlexandriansasClementandOrigen,whoapproachedtheBibleintheinterestofapre-conceivedandpre-established
³⁹ EustathiusofAntioch, Deengastrimytho,EustathiiAntiocheni,PatrisNicaeni, OperaquaeSupersuntOmnia,ed.JoséH.Declerck,CCG51(Turnhout:Brepols, 2002),thetextitselfappearspp.1–60;Diodore, Comm.Ps. pref.,7.123–8.162; Theodore, Comm Gal.4:24,112.25–120.27; TreatiseagainsttheAllegorists,French trans.byLucasVanRompay, ThéodoredeMopsueste,FragmentssyriaquesduCommentairedesPsalms,CSCO436,ScriptoresSyri190(Louvain:Peeters,1982),1–18; Englishtrans.ofportionbyFrederickG.McLeod, TheodoreofMopsuestia,TheEarly ChurchFathers(NewYork:Routledge,2009),75–9.
theologicalsystemandcultivatedtheallegorical-mysticalmethodof interpretation,theAntiochiansdevelopedadeeperinsightintothe truenatureofbiblicalinterpretation.Thefanciesofallegorycompelled thereligiousteachersofAntiochtoemployarigidlycarefulexegesisin interpretingwhattheBiblesaysinthelightofitsownhistoricaland conceptualenvironment.TheschoolofAntiochhasbeencreditedwith thehonorofbeingthe firsttohaveformulatedasystemofbiblical interpretationthatapproachedmorenearlythananyotherearlyChristianschoolmanyprinciplesofcriticismwhicharenowacceptedby thosewhoacknowledgethevalidityofthecategoriesofmodernbiblical criticism.⁴⁰
Theodoreespeciallyemergedasexemplary “forerunnerofthehistoricogrammaticalmethod.”⁴¹Greer’sassessmentwascommon:whereas Origen’ s “methodfailstointerprettheBible” becauseofhisinability “totakeseriouslythenarrative,historicalcharacterofScripture,”⁴² Theodore’ s “fundamentalreferenceisbasicallythecorrectone,his exegesisisnotonlyliteral,butinmostcasesaccurate.”⁴³
Sincethemid-twentiethcentury,agrowingbodyofworkhas challengedtheadequacyofthismodel.Comparativestudiesof ancientinterpretersincreasinglyrevealedAntiochenesandAlexandrians employing “eachother’ s ” methodsaswellassubstantialdifference withinanostensiblyunifiedschool.Thisworkbeliedbothastrict divisionbetweenthe “schools” anduniformitywithinthem.Representativeofthisconclusion,andofdirectrelevancetomystudy, JohnO’Keefe’scomparisonofCyril’sandTheodoret’scommentaries onMalachideterminedthat “betweenAntiocheneexegesisand Alexandrianexegesisthegulfwasnotsowideassomemoderntheories suppose.”⁴⁴ Rather,hisstudyrevealsthetwobishopsapplyingnearly identicalmethodstothetext,fromwhichtheyarriveatnearly identicalconclusionsregardingtheprophet’svisionoftheChristian
⁴⁰ Zaharopoulos, Theodore,110.
⁴¹McLeod, TheImageofGodintheAntiocheneTradition,27;cf.Greer, Theodore, 105;H.B.Swete, “Theodorus(26),” pp.934–48in ADictionaryofChristianBiography,Literature,SectsandDoctrinesDuringtheFirstEightCenturies,vol.4,ed. WilliamSmithandHenryWace(London:J.Murray,1877);RudolfBultmann, Die ExegesedesTheodorvonMopsuestia (Stuttgart:VerlagW.Kohlhammer,1984); Zaharopoulos, TheodoreofMopsuestia
⁴²Greer, Theodore,92. ⁴³Greer, Theodore,103.
⁴⁴ JohnO’Keefe, “InterpretingtheAngel:CyrilofAlexandriaandTheodoretof Cyrus,CommentatorsontheBookofMalachi” (PhDdiss.,CatholicUniversityof America,1993),186.
Introduction:TheodoreandCyrilinContext
πολιτεία .BothCyrilandTheodoretpaycloseattentiontotheliteral levelofthebiblicaltext,andbotharewillingtogobeyondthe literalinterpretationofthepropheticoracles.ThusO’ Keefeadds hiscritiquetodepictionsofAlexandrianexegesisasmerely “allegorical ” andAntiocheneexegesisasconsistently “ historical. ”⁴⁵
InadditiontodecreasinganexaggeratedgapbetweenAntioch andAlexandriathroughevidenceofsharedpractices,thenatureof thosepracticesthemselveshasbeensubstantiallymodified,primarily bygroundingpatristicinterpretationintheprioritiesandpracticesof ancientGreco-Romanliteraryculture,withinwhichChristianbiblical interpretationemerged.FrancesYounghasnarratedthewayin which,inreplacingclassicalliteratureasauthoritativemoraland educationalliterature,classicalmethodsofreadingtextswereadopted byChristianinterpretersandappliedtoChristianscripture.⁴⁶ Schäublin’ s pioneeringstudymarshalledevidenceofclassicalgrammaticalmethods withinTheodore’sOldTestamentinterpretation,⁴⁷ andNeuschäfer meticulouslydemonstratedOrigen’sapplicationofthesharedphilologicaltoolsofAntiquity.⁴⁸ Additionalstudieshaveestablishedhow classicalliterarydevicesshaped normativeexegeticalpractice⁴⁹ and
⁴⁵ O’Keefe’slaterworksuggestshewouldrevisehis1993conclusion,casting TheodoretascriticratherthanrepresentativeofAntiocheneexegesis, “Letter,” esp.86,88,93,99.Cf.O’Keefe, “Theodoret’sUniqueContributiontotheAntiochene ExegeticalTradition:QuestioningTraditionalScholarlyCategories,” in TheHarpof Prophecy:EarlyChristianInterpretationofthePsalms,ed.BrianE.DaleyandPaul K.Kolbet(NotreDame:UniversityofNotreDamePress,2015),191–203.
⁴⁶ FrancesYoung, “TheRhetoricalSchoolsandtheirInfluenceonPatristic Exegesis,” pp.182–99in TheMakingofOrthodoxy:EssaysinHonourofHenry Chadwick,ed.RowanWilliams(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1989); BiblicalExegesis
⁴⁷ ChristophSchäublin, UntersuchungenzuMethodeundHerkunftderantiochenischenExegese,Theophaneia:BeiträgezurReligionsundKirchengeschichtedes Altertums23(CologneandBonn:PeterHanstein,1974),thoughthisdidnotalter hisconclusionregardingTheodore’ssuperiorityasinterpreter.E.g., “versuchteer [Theodore],dieBiblemöglichstunbefangenzulesenundzueinerErklargungzu gelangen,dieseinemrationalistischenDenkengenügenkonnteundsichmiteiner wissenschaftlichenHaltungvereinbarenließ,” p.88.
⁴⁸ BernhardNeuschafer, OrigenesalsPhilologe,2vols.,SchweizerischeBeitragezur Altertumswissenschaft18(Basel:FriedrichReinhardtVerlag,1987).
⁴⁹ InlightofthesameworkbyYoungetal.,somehavesoughtandfoundevidence ofgrammaticalmethodsinthebiblicalinterpretationofCyrilofAlexandria.David CasselfoundthesixstepsoutlinedinDionysiousThrax’ s ArsGrammatica inCyril’ s CommentaryonIsaiah,J.DavidCassel, “CyrilofAlexandriaandtheScienceofthe Grammarians:AStudyintheSetting,Purpose,andEmphasisinCyril’ s Commentary onIsaiah” (PhDdiss.,UniversityofVirginia,1992).Cf.Cassel’ssubsequentarticles
suppliedrhetoricalconventionsemployedinthepolemicalaccounts thatshapedtheformermodeltoasignificantextent.⁵⁰
Inadditiontoilluminatingtheexegeticalpracticesofindividual commentators,attentiontoclassicalreadingmethodshasalsosuppliedanalternate,morecontextually-appropriateexplanationforthe Antiochenerejectionofallegory.YounghasexplainedtheAntioch/ Alexandriaconflictasaninstanceoflargerrivalriesbetweenphilosophicalandrhetoricalschoolsregardinghowmeaningisdrawn fromatext.⁵¹Whereasthephilosophersembracedverbalsymbolism,therhetorswerecommittedtotextualcoherence.ItisYoung’ s contentionthataparallelconcernmotivatedtheAntiochenereaction toOrigenistallegorizing.WhattheAntiochenesobjectedtowas Origen’susingwordsassymbolictokens notbecauseitviolated thehistoricalorliteralsensebutbecauseforthem “thenarrative sequenceand flowofargumentmattered.Thetextwasnotapretext forsomethingelse.”⁵²Thus “neitherliteralismnoraninterestin historystimulatedtheAntiochenereactionagainstOrigenistallegory,butratheradifferentapproachto findingmeaninginliterature whichhaditsbackgroundintherhetoricalschools.”⁵³
AccompanyingtheshrinkingdividebetweenAlexandriaand Antiochhavebeendemonstrationsoftheinadequaciesofthestandardclassificationsofliteral,typological,andallegoricalthathave characterizedtheAlexandria/Antiochdistinction.MargaretMitchell hasshownhowclassicalrhetoricalconventionsshapethevery polemicsuchthat “theconstructionofahardandfastdistinction betweenaliteraland figurativereadingofatextisitselfarhetorical summarizinghisbasicargument, “CyrilofAlexandriaasEducator,” pp.348–68inIn DominicoEloquio, InLordlyEloquence:EssaysonPatristicExegesisinHonorof RobertLouisWilken,ed.PaulM.Blowersetal.(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,2002); “KeyPrinciplesinCyrilofAlexandria ’sExegesis,” StP 37(2001):413–20.John O’KeefenotestheinfluenceofgrammaticalmethodsinCyril’ s Commentaryon Malachi, “InterpretingtheAngel.”
⁵⁰ SeeespeciallyMargaretM.Mitchell, “PatristicRhetoriconAllegory:Origenand EustathiusPut1Kingdoms28onTrial,” in The “Belly-Myther” ofEndor:Interpretationsof1Kingdoms28intheEarlyChurch,ed.andtrans.RowanA.Greerand MargaretM.Mitchell,WGRW16(Atlanta:SocietyofBiblicalLiterature,2007), lxxxv–cxxiii.
⁵¹Young, “RhetoricalSchools,” 118–96,extendedfromtensionbetweentheclassicalphilosophersandsophists.
⁵²Young, BiblicalExegesis,184. ⁵³Young, “RhetoricalSchools,” 193. 12 TheMinorProphetsasChristianScripture
Introduction:TheodoreandCyrilinContext
actmooredinrhetoricaltraining.”⁵⁴ Thoughinterpretersmay tend towardmoreliteralormore figuralinterpretation,theirrhetoricallydrivenclaimsdonotcorrespondtoanyconsistenthermeneutical principle.⁵⁵ Youngillustratesherpointthat “Thedifferencebetween ‘literal’ and ‘allegorical’ referenceswasnotabsolute,butlayona spectrum”⁵⁶ withagridmultiplyingexegeticalmethodswithavariety of “ senses, ” expandingtheformerbinaryintoamorecomplexsetof “readingstrategies.”⁵⁷
ThesebroadshiftshavelargelysucceededinremovinganexaggeratedgapbetweenAntiocheneandAlexandrianexegesisandcontextualizingtherhetoricalandrealcommitmentsthatgaverisetothe fourth-centuryconflict.Thecorrectionisnowstandardthatno patristicexegetewenttothebiblicaltextwiththehistoricalinterest ofamodernhistoricalcritic.Norcanoneassumetherealityoftwo schoolsbetweenwhicha firm,clearlydiscernibleboundarylineran. Whileencyclopediaentriesonexegesiscontinuetoreferencethe “schools” ofAntiochandAlexandria,andentriesonAntiochand Alexandriacontinuetoreferencetheir “schools” ofexegesis,qualificationsaccompanythesereferences,warningthereaderagainstoverstatingthedistinctionandrootingthe “schools” intheinfluenceof classicalgrammaticalandrhetoricaltraditions.
Attentiontoancientliterarymethodshasbeenahelpfulcorrective indismantlingthe firmbarrierbetweenAntiochandAlexandriaand dethroningthedichotomous,anachronisticcategoriesthatgoverned it.Clearlymorecomplex,contemporarydescriptionsandevaluations aresuperiortorigid,anachronisticones.Itisrighttomoveawayfrom mappingallofGreekexegesisaccordingtothestrictandmutually exclusivecategoriesofAntiochandAlexandria andIwillarguethat themovementhasnotgonefarenough.Yettherhetoricalmodelthat nowprevailsisnotwithoutitsowntendenciestowardreductionism.
Itisamistaketoimaginegrammaticalmethodsaloneprovide anadequateaccountofthecommitmentsthatshapedpatristicinterpretationsorthegoaltowardwhichinterpretationintended.The fathers’ primarypurposeinwritingbiblicalcommentarywasnotto
⁵⁴ Mitchell, “PatristicRhetoriconAllegory,” lxxxvii;PeterW.Martens, “Revisiting theAllegory/TypologyDistinction:TheCaseofOrigen,” JECS 16:3(2008):283–317.
⁵⁵ Mitchell, “PatristicRhetoriconAllegory,” cxxi.
⁵⁶ Young, BiblicalExegesis,120.
⁵⁷ Young, BiblicalExegesis,212–13,theresultinggridamountingtooverforty.
