Eusebius of Emesa's Commentary on Genesis and the Origins of the Antiochene School

(1)

5

THE BOOK OF GENESIS

IN JEWISH AND ORIENTAL

CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATION

A Collection of Essays

•

EDITED BY

JUDITH FRISHMAN AND LUCAS VAN ROMPAY

LOVANII IN AEDIBUS PEETERS

(2)

f i

vy vx vj.

Tous droits de reproduction, de traduction ou d'adaptation y compris les microfilms, de ce volume ou d'un autre de cette collection,

réservés pour tous pays. ISBN 90-6831-920-5 (Peelers Leuven)

D. 1997/0602/29

(3)

;>••• - . . , - • .lÉö

EUSEBIUS OF EMESA'S COMMENTARY ON GENESIS AND THE ORIGINS OF THE ANTIOCHENE SCHOOL

R.B. ter Haar Romeny*

During the fourth and fifth centuries there was a distinct antagonism between Alexandria and Antioch in the fields of dogmatics and exegesis. This antagonism is often identified as the opposition between Platonism and Aristotelianism. There is some truth in this: the predilection for alle-gorism found among the Alexandrians is related to the idea that the plain sense of a text is only the reflection of a reality which has yet to be dis-covered by the exegete; the Antiochenes took a more realistic view, con-centrating on the actual events that had taken place, just as they were recorded. Thus the opposition between Platonism and Aristotelianism may provide a means of describing the difference between the basic atti-tudes towards a text. However, it does not suffice as an historical expla-nation, if only because no direct influence of Aristotle on the Antiochene exegetes can be demonstrated1.

Many other possible explanations have been put forward. In the more recent publications, there is a tendency to concentrate on a single expla-nation for the specific nature of the Antiochene School. I believe that this reasoning is out of touch with reality: no school of exegesis — or any other school of thought, for that matter — comes into existence within a vacuum. It is the task of the historian to describe the larger con-text of a school and to determine which conditions may have contributed to its specific development and characteristics. In this paper, I should like to examine one of these conditions, namely the proximity of the Antiochene School to the Syriac-speaking world.

Though such nineteenth-century students of the history of exegesis as Diestel2, Kihn3 and Harnack4 regarded Syrian influence as an important

* I wish to convey my thanks to Prof. Luk Van Rompay for his constant encourage-ment and valuable criticism. This paper owes much to our intensive discussions on the subject. — My investigations in this field are supported by the Foundation for Philosophy and Theology, which is subventioned by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO).

1 See Chr. Schäublin, Untersuchungen :u Methode und Herkunft der Antiochenischen

Exegese (Theophaneia 23; Cologne-Bonn 1974) 30 and D.S. Wallace-Hadrill, Christian Antioch. A Study of Early Christian Thought in the East (Cambridge 1982) 96-97.

2 L. Diestel, Geschichte des Alten Testamentes in der christlichen Kirche (Jena 1869) 126. 3 H. K i h n , Theodor von Mopsuestia und Junilius Africanus als Exegeten (Freiburg im

Breisgau 1880) 12.

(4)

126 R.B. TER HAAR ROMENY

factor, it is apparently no longer considered relevant by certain more re-cent authors. Schäublin, for example, explains the Antiochene School on the basis of the profane education provided by the schools of

gram-maticus and rhetor of the imperial age5. He stresses this idea precisely

because the above scholars failed to give it due attention6. In his turn,

however, he underestimates the value of other factors which may have helped to shape the Antiochene School in the making. This also applies to Froehlich and Young; they follow the same line of thought, but em-phasize the fact that allegorical methods are part of the tradition of the philosophical schools and were not found in the rhetorical schools of the Antiochene educational system7. The possibility of Syrian influence is

not mentioned by Drewery either; he explains the characteristics of the Antiochene School mainly on the basis of a presumed inheritance of "Hebrew forms of exegesis and theological argumentation"8.

protestantische Theologie und Kirche l (3rd ed.; Leipzig 1896) [592—595] 592-593,

595.

5 Untersuchungen, 27-33. Here he follows W. Dilthey ("Die Entstehung der Herme-neutik (1900)", in Gesammelte Schriften 5. Die geistige Welt. Einleitung in die

Philo-sophie des Lebens (4th ed.; Stuttgart-Göttingen 1964) [317-334] 322), who saw in the

antagonism between the Antiochene and the Alexandrian School a return to the opposi-tion between Alexandrian and Pergamene (Stoic) philology.

6 The idea as such was not new, however. Thus we find, for example, that in the early part of the nineteenth century, F. Munter had already recorded the possibility of a Greek (profane) education ("Über die antiochenische Schule", Archiv für alte und neue

Kirchen-geschichte 1,1 (1813) [1-31] 11). E. Hatch explained somewhat later that "the earliest

methods of Christian exegesis were continuations of the methods which were common at the time to both Greek and Graco-Judzan writers" (The Influence of Greek Ideas and

Usages upon the Christian Church (The Hibbert Lectures 1888; 3rd ed.; London 1890)

third lecture; quotation p. 69). Bultmann stressed the importance of research into the rela-tion to profane exegesis in his Habilitarela-tionsschrift (Rudolf Bultmann. Die Exegese des

Theodor von Mopsuestia. Posthum herausgegeben, H. Feld and K.H. Schelkle, eds.

(Stuttgart [etc.] 1984) 18) and E. Schweizer ("Diodor von Tarsus als Exeget", Zeitschrift

für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 40 (1941) [33-75] 64-67) pointed out the

impli-cations of Diodore's education in Athens.

7 K. Froehlich, Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church (Sources of Early Christian Thought; Philadelphia 1984)20-21; F. Young, "Exegetical Method and Scriptural Proof — the Bible in Doctrinal Debate", in E.A. Livingstone (ed.), Papers presented to the Tenth

International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford 1987 (Studia Patristica 19;

Louvain 1989) [291-304] 303; and Idem, "The Rhetorical Schools and their Influence on Patristic Exegesis", in R. Williams (ed.), The Making of Orthodoxy. Essays in Honour of

Henry Chadwick (Cambridge 1989) 182-199. Cf. also H.N. Bate, "Some Technical

Terms of Greek Exegesis", The Journal of Theological Studies 24 (1923) [59-66] 59-60. Even in the last century, H.S. Nash connected philosophy and allegorism ("The Exegesis of the School of Antioch. A Criticism of the Hypothesis that Aristotelianism was a Main Cause in its Genesis", Journal of Biblical Literature 11 (1892) 22-37).

8 B. Drewery, "Antiochien 2. Die Bedeutung Antiochiens in der alten Kirche", in

(5)

In the first part of this paper, I shall give a working definition of the Antiochene School, going on to examine why the proximity of the Syriac world was noted as a contributing factor in the last century, and why Schäublin and others do not attach any particular importance to it. Then I shall undertake to establish whether or not the connection can be upheld. Here the person and work of Eusebius of Emesa will prove to be of prime importance.

The Antiochene School

In Antioch there was not always a clear line of succession from pupil to teacher. Or, to put it more correctly, we are often unable to identify the exact links between the members of this school, although we have a clear impression that they do indeed belong together. The Antiochene School is perhaps best described as a school of thought (Richtung), rather than an institution (Lehranstalt) such as the School of the Catechists in Alexandria9.

Certain scholars have distinguished between an 'early' and a 'late' Antiochene School, the latter beginning with Diodore. For some, this meant there were actually two schools10; others kept to the single school,

but made a distinction between its earlier and later members11. All based

this partitioning of the School on the dogmatic differences between ear-lier and later Antiochenes, but it is interesting to note that those who were considered members of the 'Early Antiochene School' were pre-cisely those about whom the least was known. Now that the dogmatic positions of Eusebius of Emesa and Diodore of Tarsus have become somewhat clearer12, and Diodore's indebtedness to Eusebius in exegeti-9 Thus Diestel, Geschichte, 126 and Hamack, "Antiochenische Schule", 592. See also

Idem, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte 2. Die Entwickelung des kirchlichen Dogmas l (4th ed.; Tübingen 1909) 341 n. 1.

10 Thus F. Loof s, Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengeschichte (4th ed.; Halle am

Saale 1906) 277-278, or Ibidem, K. Aland, ed. (6th ed.; Tübingen 1959) 218-219.

11 Thus Kinn, Theodor und Junilius, 11-12, and Harnack, "Antiochenische Schule",

592 and Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte 2, 341 n. 3.

12 See A. Grillmeier, "Die theologische und sprachliche Vorbereitung der

(6)

128 R.B. TER HAAR ROMENY

cal matters has been established beyond doubt13, this distinction is no

longer acceptable. It is still difficult to come to grips with the time be-fore Eusebius because of the scarcity of texts handed down to us from this period, but there are equally few grounds for drawing the line before Eusebius. This does not mean that I recognize no developments in the School. The method of exegesis clearly became more and more system-atic after Eusebius; we know, for example, that Theodore developed a system of strict rules for exegesis. However, this was no sudden change: Diodore's theoretical writings date from before this time14, and many of

Theodore's rules appear — explicitly or implicitly — in Eusebius's works15. Thus there is no evidence to suggest that the School falls into

two clearly distinct parts.

Antiochene exegesis16 focuses on the events that have actually

hap-pened (the Jipayucrca), examining their place in the context and logic of the narrative, and their moral and dogmatic implications. To that end, the exegete explains words, metaphors, and comparisons on the basis of the context, his knowledge of practical things as well as external sources; he fills gaps in the story and discusses ambiguities, paradoxes, and discrepancies; and he often provides a paraphrase. He recognizes the difficulties arising from the fact that the Septuagint is a translation, and occasionally cites other witnesses of the biblical text. The Old Tes-tament is regarded as an entity, and a collation with other passages within this entity is an important device, according to the principle "Ouripov e% 'Ouf|pou CTaq>r|viCeiv17. Allegorism is rejected and very

few Old Testament texts are seen as pointing directly and exclusively to the New Testament. The Antiochene exegete can, however, build a

dif-13 F. Petit, "La tradition de Théodore! de Cyr dans les chaînes sur la Genèse", Le

Muséon 92 (1979) [281-286] 284; see below.

14 For example, the hypothesis to Ps 118 from the Commentary on the Psalms which

is attributed to him ("Extraits du Commentaire de Diodore de Tarse sur les Psaumes. Préface du Commentaire — Prologue du Psaume cxvm", L. Mariés, éd.. Recherches de Science Religieuse 10 (1919) [79-101] 90-101. English translation in Froehlich, Biblical Interpretation, 87-94). The Suida (8 1149 s.v. Diodore) also mentions his Tic 8ia<popà Oetopiaç Kai àXXiyyopiaç, now lost.

15 Although founded on Buytaert's now outdated edition of Catena fragments, J.A.

Novotny's "Les fragments exégétiques sur les livres de l'Ancien Testament d'Eusèbe d'Émèse", Orientalia Christiana Periodica 57 (1991) 27-67, is nevertheless a highly useful review of Eusebius's exegetical principles.

16 A good description of the Antiochene method is found in Schäublin's

Untersuchungen. See, in particular, his detailed survey of Theodore's exegesis (84—155) and his chapter on the Antiochene icpiaic noirmattóv (157-170). Compare also Diestel, Geschichte, 129-141 and Novotny's "Fragments exégétiques".

(7)

ferent bridge between the Old and the New Testament, using typological explanations, in which the text retains a single sense: it refers to one his-torical fact, which is a figure, a foreshadowing of another18.

The School and the Syrians

Those authors who pointed to the influence of the Syriac-speaking world on the Antiochene School did not always provide evidence to sup-port their view. The fact that Antioch was the capital of the Province of Syria probably meant that they took this influence for granted. Indeed, the geographical and sociological position of Antioch is an important ar-gument: not only was there a direct road to Edessa and Nisibis (both of which had their own schools), but there was also a large Syriac-speaking community in the Antioch area itself. Contacts between the Greek and the Syriac-speaking communities must have been lively; moreover, the trade route ensured an exchange of ideas with northern Mesopotamia.

A further argument was to be found in the tradition that the school of Antioch was founded by the Syrian martyr Lucian (t 312). He was said to have been born in Samosata (on the Euphrates, to the north of Edessa), and educated by Macarius of Edessa before coming to Antioch. Moreover, Eusebius of Emesa, considered by some19 to be the first to

apply the Antiochene method of exegesis, was also of Eastern descent and education, having been born in Edessa. And finally, Maries sugges-ted a Syrian origin because of certain characteristics shared by Ephrem's commentaries and the commentary on the Psalms which he attributed to Diodore20. The affinity between Ephrem's exegesis and the Antiochene

School and Eusebius's position as a trait d'union between Edessa and Antioch have attracted renewed attention in recent publications21.

18 Schäublin, Untersuchungen, 166-170 and Diestel, Geschichte, 131-133. See also

J.-N. Guinot, "La typologie comme technique herméneutique", in Cahiers de Biblia Patris-tica 2. Figures de l'Ancien Testament chez les Pères (Strasbourg 1989) 1-34, with refer-ences to the earlier literature.

" J.A. Emesti, "Narratio Critica de Interpretatione Prophetiarum Messianarum in Ecclesia Christiana", in his Opuscula Theologica (2nd ed.; Leipzig 1792) [445-477] 449-450. Cf. also Munter, "Über die antiochenische Schule", 13-14 and Hamack, "Antio-chenische Schule", 593.

20 L. Mariés, Études préliminaires à l'édition de Diodore de Tarse sur les Psaumes:

la tradition manuscrite, deux manuscrits nouveaux, le caractère Diodorien du commentaire (Collection d'études anciennes; Paris 1933) 66.

21 See S. Hidal, Interpretatio Syriaca. Die Kommentare des heiligen Ephräm des

(8)

exégé-130 R.B. TER HAAR ROMENY

Now Schäublin does not actually deny any Syrian influence; he sim-ply maintains that it does not explain the problem of the origin of Antiochene exegesis22. It is probably among those factors which he

deems not 'concrete'23. As he makes no further reference to this point,

we shall have to guess at the reasons behind his rejection. In my opinion, it has to do primarily with the fact that his knowledge of the School is based on Diodore and later exegetes. (The same probably holds true for Froehlich and Young, who do not even mention the possibility of Syrian influence. In the case of Drewery, too, a certain one-sidedness with re-spect to the question of origin may be due to his focus on only a few rep-resentatives of the School.) Schäublin explains that very little is known about the life and activities of Lucian, who was assumed to be the founder of the School. It was Diodore who was to be its first tangible representative, as well as the first scholar after Lucian to leave his mark on the School24. If Schäublin had been familiar with Bardy's studies on

Lucian, he would have found that a bit more is now known about the lat-ter, even though many uncertainties do remain. Bardy even questions Lucian's origins: he may have been born in Antioch instead of Samo-sata, and was perhaps not educated in Edessa25. All in all, these data

would certainly not have persuaded Schäublin to change his mind on the issue of influences from the East.

There is, however, something else which should have set him thinking. Schäublin is one of those who are striving to come up with one single explanation for the Antiochene methods. At one point, however, he gets into trouble: he states that Diodore and Theodore recognized the problems stemming from the fact that the Septuagint is a translation. He gives nu-merous examples to support this view, and admits that these data presup-pose bilingualism and a knowledge of translation problems. Such knowl-edge cannot be explained on the basis of Greek education. As yet, schol-ars had little experience in translating into Greek, he says, and neither tique de Théodore de Mopsueste", in H.J.W. Drijvers et al. (eds.), IV Symposium Syriacum 1984. Literary Genres in Syriac Literature (Orientalin Christiana Analecta 229; Rome 1987) [33^3] 33-35.

12 Untersuchungen, 27 n. 9.

23 Schäublin cites K i l i n ' s well-known enumeration of influences upon the Antiochene

School (Theodor und Junilius, 12) and says: "Die scheinbare Fülle des Aufgezählten enthält wenig Konkretes" (Untersuchungen, 28).

24 See Schäublin's Untersuchungen, 13 and his "Diodor von Tarsus", in Theologische

Realenzyktopädie 8 (Berlin - New York 1981) [763-767] 764.

23 See G. Bardy, "Lucien d'Antioche", in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique 9,1

(9)

Diodore nor Theodore knew any other languages. Unfortunately, he then simply gives up any further attempts to solve this problem26.

The solution is not, however, that difficult. As we have seen, some scholars attached great importance to the position of Eusebius of Emesa at the beginning of the School. This high esteem was based mainly on a few passages in Jerome's De Viris Inlustribus, which refer to the indebt-edness of Diodore and John Chrysostom to Eusebius27. This evidence is

rejected by Schäublin out of hand28, though Schweizer had previously

proven that Diodore used Eusebius's commentary on at least one occa-sion29. An early Armenian translation of Eusebius's Commentary on the

Octateuch has now been published by Hovhannessian30, while Petit has

done considerable work on the Catena. These new data fully corroborate the thesis that the expositions in Diodore's Commentary on Genesis that demonstrate a knowledge of translation problems or that cite 'the He-brew' or 'the Syrian' are based on Eusebius's Commentary*1. It is time to explore what the biography and works of this Syrian can tell us.

Eusebius of Emesa: Some Biographical Details

There are a number of extensive studies on Eusebius's life32. Here it

will be sufficient to recall a few relevant details. Eusebius was bom

26 Untersuchungen, 123-126. He concludes: "... doch wagen wir kein Urteil darüber,

woher eine solche Einsicht zu Diodor und Theodor gelangt sein könnte."

27 See note 19 above. Jerome's remarks can be found in section 119 (Patrologia Latino

23, 750A 7-13 or Hieronymi De Viris Inlustribus Liber. Accedit Gennadii Catalogus Virorum Mustrium, W. Herding, ed. (Leipzig 1924) p. 62) and 129 (Patrologia Latino 23, 754A 13-16; Herding, ed., p. 64). See also section 91 (Patrologia Latino 23, 734A 3-11 ; Herding, ed., p. 54), where Eusebius is depicted as a writer of many works, who knew his rhetoric.

28 Untersuchungen, 43 note 2.

29 E. Schweizer, "Diodor von Tarsus", 49 n. 78; cf. p. 68.

30 Eusèbe d'Émèse l. Commentaire de l'Octateuque, V. Hovhannessian, ed., (Venice

1980).

" See Petit's "La tradition de Theodor« de Cyr", 284 (note 13 above).

32 H.J. Lehmann gives a survey of all studies on Eusebius (Per Piscatores —

(10)

1 32 R.B. TER HAAR ROMENY

around 300 in Edessa, where he was educated in profane and sacred lit-erature. Although his mother tongue must have been Syriac, it was in the Greek language that he pursued his studies: he was a pupil of Eusebius of Caesarea and Patrophilus of Scythopolis. He lived in Antioch and Alexandria, and in both cities declined to accept nomination as bishop, perhaps because he wanted to avoid taking sides in the dogmatic strifes of the day. Eventually, he did accept the see of Emesa. The reception he received there was not entirely favourable — his flock probably consid-ered him too much of a scholar — and he appears to have spent his last years in Antioch.

Eusebius' s Commentary on Genesis 22:12

The scope of this paper does not permit the examination of more than a small part of Eusebius's Commentary on Genesis. I hope, however, to succeed in giving an impression of the problems and possibilities in-volved in the study of the difficult textual tradition of this important text33. The fragments I have selected deal with the expression NCv yap

ëyvcov ÖTV cpoßfj TÔV Oeôv au, Now I have come to know that you

fear God, from Gen 22: 12. 1 shall first give the text of all the witnesses,

together with a translation34.

A. CATENA FRAGMENT attributed to Eusebius of Emesa: ed. Petit,

Chaîne 1267

'A vu TOÛ «NCv ëSeiÇaç». Doc yàp àyvoeï aÙTÔç Xéycov "Hiôeiv

yàp on avvTÛÇei 'Aßpaa(i tofç rccuaiv aùtoù TOÛ (puA-óaaew ràç

èvToXàç Kvpiov; 'AXX' ôanep tô "Iv' el8à>, ôeiKVOei nèv (bç ßou-Xo(ievoça uttoeïv, ßoüXeiav 8è SiSdÇai TOÛ 9eoû TÔ aicpißec, OUTGO

Kai vûv ôeiKvûet uèv àrcô TOUTOU yivoaicovTa TÖV 0eov, ßouXeTai 5è f|uàç ôiôâÇou, Nvv è'yvwv Xéycov, àrtô TOUTOU ytvoxncew Tt|v elç 6eàv ày07tr|v.

• ßouXou,evoc L M S B Pr PI; ßouXonevov Pt1*, prob, legendum

33 On this textual tradition, see my " 'Quis Sit Eûpoç' Revisited", in A. Salvesen

(ed.), Origen's Hexapla and Fragments: Papers given at the Rich Seminar on the Hexapla, Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies, 1994 (forthcoming).

34 The texts are taken from the relevant editions or manuscripts. In two instances an

(11)

In the sense of "Now you have shown". For how does (God) not know, who

himself said: "For I knew that Abraham would order his children to keep the Gen 18:19 10 commandments of the Lord"! However, just as the (expression) "In order that I Gen 18:21

know" shows (God) as if he wants to learn, but (in fact) wants to teach God's strictness, so (Scripture) now also shows God as discerning from this (act of Abraham), but (in fact) it wants to teach us, by saying "Now I have come to know", to discern from this (act Abraham's) love for God.

B. CATENA FRAGMENT of uncertain authorship: ed. Petit, Chaîne 1266 At|A.aôr| ó Meyâhjç ßov^c âyyehoç.

Clearly (Scripture refers to) the Angel of the great counsel. Is 9:5 C. CATENA FRAGMENT of uncertain authorship: ed. Petit, Chaîne 1268

TOUTÉCTTV «NCv ë§ei£,aç», d>c 6 'Eßpaloc. Oö yàp äyvoiav elaàyei 0eoC, à'k'kà ôiicriç aicpißeiav- d>ç TÔ Kaießri lôeïv ei Kara iffv

Kpavyfjv abrcôv avvTeuoovTai.

That is: "Now you have shown", as (reads) the Hebrew. For he does not bring 5 forward ignorance of God, but (rather) strictness of trial, as (in the expression)

"He went down to see whether they acted altogether according to the cry Gen 18:21 against them."

D. PROCOPIUS: Mnc 108v 19-23, ed. Petit ad Chaîne 1267 (PG 87.1, 389/390B 19-22 [Latin], 392A 1-2)

(pt|af Miv yàp ëyvcav öti <poßfj ab TOV 9eov, toi/tetm «Nùv £oei-Çaç». Où yàp äyvoiav elaâyei 0eoC. rnrôç yàp àyvoeî aotôç Xéycov

"Hiôeiv yàp on auvm&i 'Aßpaan roïç naiaiv aôroD TOO cpuXàaaew

tàç èvioXàç Kvpiou; 'AM.' œanep TÔ "/va elôoV, armaivei ôè ôiKT|ç 5 aKpißeiav. 'O ôè 'Eßpaloc çriaiv ÖTI «'Eyco oï5a ÖTI (poßrj au TÔV

0eov».

Then he says: "For now I have come to know that you fear God," that is, "Now you have shown". For he does not bring forward ignorance of God, 'for how

does he not know, who himself said: "For I knew that Abraham would order his Gen 18: 19 10 children to keep the commandments of the Lord"! However, as the (expression)

"In order that I know",1 (this one) signifies strictness of trial. The Hebrew, Gen 18:21

however, says: "I know that you fear God."

E. ARMENIAN TRANSLATION: ed. Hovhannessian, 68,579-69,595

l | l î l l l , (||l l l l | < l l i l | | l l l l l l l l | | l |)1. l , | l l | l l \ | l l l | | | . I I I I 1 I I 1

(12)

1 34 R.B. TER HAAR ROMENY

H/HIHIHI lijil.iii/1, ll./'/ini^iiiii nptfLng /"/""/ ii/m^l-/ 1/^1111111111/111/1^11 Stuinii», in f f 11/111/1.11 i j j i < | | I M M I I I ] | I ( | | I ifin ijinlil. jij' f i n i P t in i' "i lil' f l/iii il/ni ji, L in uni i/iiilil.j 5 l/ini/ji ni f l a u i/ll.iiiiiiii^ni {uiLuiutnjtuti, im 1)111/1.11 L uiuui i/iii i/niiil.' I<H i/iiji ll.iiiiini ni^li i/jnnl. ill'ij IfUllip [in fin III, j , ijl in jinn /,ƒ!/< /,/(//ƒ; »(ƒ)/; IL/'/iiii^iiiilin ,

|*69*| i/ii/i inn [l.iiiiiiiiinuli iiilil./i: /'///ƒ uiunpfiïi lpt1 ju ui il uilj uiuh[nj' jil I. l l . | < l i i I||MIIIII(||I, H / I / / . l | , | < l i ï < S i n l i i i i ( | l . | i . ƒ • / / / ƒ / / / / ƒ ) Jini/ umi,' j,/ 1, uijctö

buiïi-mijl,/!, i/iiiliiiiilniili iiuil,/!^ jill, uijda in inn i/l./i Wl/kïiuijil ilm/ujl/nili : l'iil/ 10

/,/•/»»/'•'//''' uil/f' ^?f tu y//////.// /i//// qp kplfii^u jUumnLÓnj:

"Do not", he says, "stretch out your hand to the boy, and you should not do any evil to him, for now I have come to know that you fear God — in the sense of Gen 18:19 saying: "now you have shown". For how would he not know, who said: "/

knew that Abraham would order his children to keep the commandments of the 15 Gen 18:21 Lord"! However, as the (expression) "In order that I know" shows (God) as if

he wants to learn, and (Scripture in fact) wants to teach through this (expres-sion) God's strictness, so it now also shows that God wants to reveal to us what he knows, in order that through this Abraham's love should appear, which he had for God. Now the Syrian, instead of saying "Now I have come to know", 20 says "Now you have made known". He correctly says "Now you have made known", in the sense of saying: "Now you have taught all mankind". Now the Hebrew says: "I know that you fear God."

F. DIODORE: ed. Petit, Csl. 204 11. 1-14

Kal èKâteaev abtov dyyeAoc Kvpiov èC ovpavov Kal eïnev aorta-'Aßpaaft, 'Aßpaafi. 'O ôè eînev- 'lôob èycb. Ehe ôé- Mf] enißa^qc trjv XEÏpâ aov ènl to naiôiov • vvv yàp ëyvcov on (poßfj ab ràv Oeóv, Kal OOK è(peia(o roù vhv aov TOV ayantj-tov oi' eße. "AyyeÀoç yàp Kopiov èÇ ovpavov, (pr|div[, Kal OOK èipeiaco roß àyantjrov aov vioït oi' è^é]*. 5

8r|A.a5f| 6 Msyatyc ßovkfjc ayyekoç. 'Eàv 5è Xeyrj ^VDv ëyvcov, d>ç TÔ Kai Kaießriv lôeîv EÎ Kara rrjv Kpavyfjv afacov avvre^ovvrai, ne pi Zooóncov elprinévov. "Qanep yap èiceï OÖK äyvotav elaàyei GeoC àX,Xà 8iKT|ç aKpißeiav — 7t(oç yàp äv KatfiXGev el \i.r\ ànaptcoXoùç fjôet; — OUT« Kai TÔ Miv ëyvcov, àvti too «vôv ëôet^aç», V\ 10 «èyvœptaaç» ÖTV au (poßfj TÓV Geóv.

* haec verba, quae praebent C Mo, rede déesse in A B puto

(13)

20 bring forward ignorance of God, but (rather) strictness of trial — for how would he have descended if he did not know the sinners? — thus also the (expression) "Now I have come to know" (is used) in the sense of "now you have shown" or "now you have made known" that you fear God.

G. AUTHOR UNCERTAIN (Gennadius?): ed. Petit, Csl. 204 11. 15-21 AOKEÎ 8é nat uf| tôv ulôv aA.X' äyyeXov elprjKÉvat tô Nvv fyvcov, (bç àno TOÙ 6eoC uèv cpGeyyouevov, ouoXoyouvia ôè Tt|v éautoù äyvoiav, Kai OK TCOV ëpycov yv<opiaavîa Tf|v TOÙ 'Aßpaau niativ. "AXX.OV ôé (paai TÔ Nvv ëyvcov èv TTJ eßpatot è7iau(pOTepvÇew, Kai 5 TOÙTO yàp armaivetv aua Kai ÖTV «vùv èyvœpiaaç», àvri TOO

«nàavv Ëôet^aç KOÎ ènoiriaaç (pavepóv».

Some think that it was not the Son but an angel who said "Now I have come to know", as if (this angel) spoke in the name of God, but confessed his own igno-rance, and discovered Abraham's loyalty from his works. Others, however, say 10 that the (expression) "Now I have come to know" is ambiguous in Hebrew, and that it means in fact at the same time also "now you have made known", in the sense of "you have shown it to all and made it manifest".

Discussion of the Fragments

Textual tradition. Lines 1-8 (12-20) of the Armenian text contain a

rather literal translation of the Greek text as found in Catena fragment A, except for the end of the passage, which may be just a somewhat freer rendering. Lines 8-11 (20-23) contain a Eupoc and a 'Eßpaloc reading not found in the Catena. At first sight, this Armenian text seems to be a complete unit. However, I venture to suggest that Eusebius has written more about this verse. The following elements should be men-tioned: (1) a summarizing statement "For he does not bring forward ig-norance of God, but rather strictness of trial," found in C, D (split up), and F; (2) a long quotation from the first part of Gen 18:21 in C and F (as against the short one from the end of the verse in A and E); (3) the identification of the angel with the Angel of the great counsel in B and F35.

As these elements are found in the Catena proper, in Procopius, or in both, it is less likely that they were created by Diodore himself: we have

33 Procopius gives the same identification just before the fragment cited above, in

(14)

no evidence that he was quoted on a regular basis by these witnesses36.

On the other hand, the fact that they are found in Diodore does suggest that they may have originally been written by Eusebius, his model and the main supplier of material for his own Commentary on Genesis. If such is the case, the question arises of why they are not found in the Armenian translation. Now it should be noted that there are other indica-tions that the Armenian translation is not complete37. The way Procopius

combines A and C38, and the fact that B and C are found in different

places either before or after A in Catena manuscripts, suggest that the original version of B and C came from a different place in the

Commen-tary — relocation of fragments is, after all, not unusual in the Catena —

or even formed part of some other work written by Eusebius.

Two problems remain: what about the first line of C, containing a 'EßpaToc reading which conflicts with the reading found in A and D, and what can we learn from fragment G ? As to the first question, it is not likely that Eusebius provided two different 'Eßpmoc readings for one word. Now the reading oï8a is supported by the Armenian and Procopius; moreover, in Procopius we find the same formula as the one found in C, Toutécm- «Növ ëSeiÇaç», instead of A(E)'s àvti TOÙ «Nuv ëôeiÇaç» — which means they are both quoting the 'other' frag-ment frag-mentioned above —, but he does not say that NCv ëSeiÇctç is the Hebrew's reading. We can explain all this by assuming that obç 6 'Eßpavoc in C is not appropriate here. This is where we come to frag-ment G.

This text may have been written by Gennadius, who in a few places quotes Eusebius, although not as literally as Diodore does39. In his use of

Eusebius here, the author of fragment G evidently confused the Syrian and the Hebrew; this is not surprising, for the Hebrew was considered more important, and the Syrian was used even by Eusebius himself as a way of getting closer to the Hebrew40. Thus the Greek text of 6 Zopoç

should be established as Nuv èyvwpiaaç, and perhaps the paraphrase of

36 Cf. Petit, "La tradition de Théodore! de Cyr", 284.

37 To give one example, the Greek fragment on Gen 11:3 discussed in " 'O Itipoc

Re-visited" (ed. Petit, Chaîne 838) is attributed to Eusebius by Catena manuscripts and con-tains a Zùpoç reading, but it has no counterpart in the Armenian text.

18 The elements from A in Procopius appear between half brackets.

39 See for the suggestion concerning Gennadius's authorship Petit, Csl. 204 note c; for

his way of quoting Eusebius, compare Csl. 205 11. 2-4.

40 He explicitly makes an appeal to Syriac as a neighbouring language of Hebrew (ed.

(15)

the Syrian, translated into Armenian as "Now you have taught all man-kind" (cf. the Armenian text, E, line 10 (22)), is found here in Greek as well: nàaiv ëôeiÇaç Kai ènoinaaç (pavepóv.

Now if the text or texts which formed the basis of the Catena frag-ments do indeed use the word ëSeiÇaç in the paraphrase of the Syrian, too, then the inappropriate (bç 6 'Eßpcüoc in fragment C can be consid-ered the result of a confusion between the Syrian and the Hebrew similar to the one in fragment G.

The question at issue. With respect to the genre, Eusebius's Commen-tary on Genesis can best be termed a selective41 commentary, as it deals

with only a limited number of difficult passages, one of which is Gen 22:12. The problem at issue here is the conflict between the omniscience of God and the expression NCv Eyvoov, Now f have come to know. Eusebius comments upon the text using the context and parallel pas-sages; he gives paraphrases and uses alternative readings of the biblical text.

The same problem arises in connection with I8eïv in Gen 2:19, 11:5, and ö\j/ouai...ïva y va) in Gen 18:21. In all instances, Eusebius provides an explanation, which suggests that a good understanding of these pas-sages was quite important to him. The explanation may be the fact that these passages could be used by Marcionites to show that the God of the Old Testament was not omniscient. Origen also deals with this problem. His answer is simple: the sinners are not worth knowing42. Eusebius

gives two other answers.

In the first instance, he says that God conceded the authority to name the animals to Adam, so that the naming itself was beyond his control43.

Here he mentions two other instances, Gen 11:5 and 18:21, and gives the same explanation: the building of the tower of Babel and the acts of the Sodomites happened in spite of him. This idea is repeated ad Gen 11:5, with reference to the Sodomites44. The other explanation is found

ad Gen 18:2145 and here ad Gen 22:12: Scripture wants to show that

God is acting scrupulously when passing judgement, thus giving Abraham the opportunity to show his good will and his love for God. In other words, Êyvœv should be taken as EôeiÇaç. Eusebius mentions the

41 This type is closely related to the genre of the Cr|Tf|naTa Kai Xûaeiç. For the term,

see L. Van Rompay's contribution to this volume.

42 Homiliae in Genesim iv, 6 (Origène. Homélies sur la Gtnèse, L. Doutreleau, ed.

(Sources Chrétiennes 7bis; Paris 1976) 156-161).

(16)

reading of 'the Syrian' in confirmation of this. As we have shown else-where, this 'Syrian' should be taken as Eusebius's own rendering of the Syriac version of the Bible46. An important addition to this Zopoc

read-ing is the paraphrase mentioned above, which adds an indirect object to the verb47 and may have closed the circle by giving ëSeiÇaç as the verb.

This raises the question of which came first, the Eupoc reading or the explanation. It would appear that Eusebius's understanding of this pas-sage was determined from the outset by his understanding of the Syriac Bible. It should be noted here that exactly the same explanation — Abraham has shown his love for God — is found both in Ephrem and in the so-called Ephrem Graecus48. And finally, the citation of the Hebrew

appears to have been intended as another confirmation that God already knew, as the verb is clearly non-inchoative.

Quotations from the Septuagint. It is clear that Eusebius is quoting Gen

18:19 from memory, as it is a rather free citation. The element TOO (puXdaaeiv (instead of KCÙ (puA-âÇoumv) is given as the reading of the Syrian in his explanation of Gen 18:1949. The short quotation of Gen

18:21 in A, D (and E) (with elôéô instead of yvœ) does not have the sup-port of any Septuagint manuscript either; this, too, is probably a quotation from memory. The longer one is in fact a combination of Gen 11:5 (KOÙ KdTeßrj KÛpioç ISeïv) and Gen 18:21 ; this comes as no surprise, for as we have seen, these belong to a series of verses with the same problem.

The alternative readings. As explained above, Eusebius cites the

Syr-ian as NOv èyvcopirjaç, "you have made known". This is in fact a com-mon interpretation of the Peshitta's i^.ior«' acom-mong Syrian exegetes, "I have made known" being the other possibility50. The Hebrew is quoted

46 See my " 'O lûpoç Revisited".

47 'All (mankind)'; most Syrian commentaries specify 'the angels' instead;

Bar-hebraeus reads 'angels and men'. See S.P. Brock, "Genesis 22 in Syriac Tradition", in P. Casetti, O. Keel and A. Schenker (eds.), Mélanges Dominique Barthélémy. Études bibliques offertes à l'occasion de son 60" anniversaire (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 38; Fribourg - Göttingen 1981) [2-30] 15.

48 Ephrem: Sancti Ephraem Syri in Genesim et in Exodum Commentarii, R.M.

Ton-neau, éd. (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 152 / Scriptores Syri 71 ; Louvain 1955) 84,9-11. Ephrem Graecus: S. Ephraem Syri Opéra 1, 1. Sermones in Abraham et Isaac, In Basilium Magnum, In Eliam, S.G. Mercati, éd. (Monumenta Biblica et Eccle-siastica 1; Rome, 1915) stanza 154: ïva SeiÇr) »taai TOÎÇ tôv KÓCTHOV olKoùoiv ÖTI O(p68pa ayant}. TÔV 9eôv 6 'Aßpadja. Cf. also Theodoret, Quaestiones in Genesim Ixxiv (Theodoreti Cyrensis Quaestiones in Octateuchum, N. Fernandez Marcos and A. Sàenz-Badillos, eds. (Textos y Estudios «Cardenal Cisneros»; Madrid 1979) 68,11-17).

4' Armenian text: ed. Hovhannessian, 62,377-390.

30 On this interesting Peshitta reading and its possible background in Jewish exegesis,

(17)

only once: 'Eycb ol5a ÖTV cpoßfi crû tôv 0eóv, a literal translation of the Masoretic Text. The absence of vuv in this quotation probably does not indicate any textual difference, as this word is not under discussion here. It may have been left out on purpose to prevent any inchoative under-standing of the verb.

Eusebius, Ephrem, and Origen

In the case of Gen 22:12, among others, Eusebius and his contempo-rary and fellow-countryman Ephrem both favour the same explanation. There is, however, no reason to assume that one of them borrowed from the other. The agreement can easily be explained by the common traits in their method of exegesis and their use of the Syriac Bible. Neverthe-less, in order to answer the question of Syrian influence, it may be worthwhile to explore the relationship between Ephrem and Eusebius in more detail.

As Van Rompay explains in his contribution to this volume, Ephrem's exegesis may be compared to the Antiochene, but there are certain dif-ferences in the genre of the respective commentaries and the way of dealing with the biblical text. Moreover, Ephrem makes quite extensive use of aggadic traditions, whereas the Antiochenes are critical of these. The aggadic material fits neatly into Ephrem's genre: he provides a paraphrase of Genesis, often using it to fill in the gaps in the narrative. He employs the material in an uncritical, non-explicit way. I believe he is able to do so because of the congeniality of his genre and the narrative aggada. In more than one case, his additions to the biblical text have no parallel in Jewish sources; thus it could even be argued that he invented some of them himself.

Greek and Latin patristic literature used aggadic traditions somewhat differently. Kamesar makes clear that aggadic material was employed in an aspect of exegesis called to laiopiKOv, the supplying of information pertaining to persons, places, dates, and events. Data from the aggada were especially useful in filling in gaps in the story, events that are passed over in silence (G%i\\ia ai(07if|aea)ç in the Greek literary termi-nology), but which should be supplied for a full understanding of the story51. This may seem comparable to what Ephrem is doing, but it is

(18)

140 R.B. TER HAAR ROMENY

Eusebius of Caesarea and Jerome, used the aggada in a conscious and critical way. The data were taken out of their original literary context and before they were accepted, their consistency with the biblical text was assessed. The Antiochenes had an even less accommodating attitude to aggadic traditions. Kamesar explains that they did not want to exploit the cxfjutt avco7if|<yecoc for 'historical' interpretation. They only ap-pealed to this feature of biblical style when required to do so by the im-mediate context52. The Antiochenes, not surprisingly, were anxious not

to add anything to the biblical text that was based on conjecture. Eusebius, more than the other Antiochenes, appears to be aware of aggadic traditions, but like them, he warns against adding anything to the biblical text53. He is a contemporary of Ephrem and both are Syrians;

moreover, he is a pupil of Eusebius of Caesarea; but we can already discern some of the Antiochene uneasiness with regard to the aggadic traditions.

The commentary on Gen 22:12 points to another important difference between Ephrem and the Antiochenes: the latter show an awareness of the fact that the Septuagint is only a translation of the Hebrew text; they had a knowledge of translation problems; and they used other versions in their commentaries. We have seen that the knowledge of translation problems goes back to Eusebius's bilingualism. The citing of other wit-nesses to the biblical text may be seen as a practical consequence, but Eusebius did not have to invent this procedure himself. Through his Caesarene namesake and as a result of his stay in Alexandria, Eusebius knew about Origen's philological work and about the Hexapla. This must have inspired him. There is, however, also a clear difference be-tween Origen and Eusebius. Origen fostered an idealistic view of the dif-ferent witnesses: they all give no more than one image of the true text of the Bible, and thus all have their relative value — though it may be that the Septuagint was especially suited to the Christian community, through God's olicovonia54. Eusebius, on the other hand, adhered to the

idea of the Hebraica veritas; his interest in translation problems stemmed from his bilingualism. Thus Eusebius and Origen proceeded

52 Kamesar, "The Evaluation of the Narrative Aggada", 68.

53 See Novotn^, "Les fragments exégétiques", 32 (item 3 with n. 18).

54 On the intentions and background of Origen's philological work, see for example

(19)

from different premises. Kamesar rightly states that Eusebius did not know enough Hebrew to use the original text himself — which is why he used the Syriac Bible —, but this does not alter his intentions, which are comparable to those of Jerome, that other bilingual (and even trilin-gual) scholar55.

Conclusion

In Eusebius's commentary we have seen no allegorizing: he wants to solve problems by keeping to the plain sense, to the events as such. This does not mean that he has no other interests, such as the refutation of the Marcionites. In these respects he is in line with later Antiochenes and Ephrem. In his knowledge of the Syriac Bible and certain Jewish ex-egetical traditions, Eusebius is closer to Ephrem than to his followers, but with regard to the genre of his commentary and the acceptance of aggadic traditions, it is the other way round: Eusebius's genre is strongly influenced by the pagan Greek grammarians, and we feel a growing dis-like of the aggada in his commentary; by contrast, aggadic material is incorporated in a natural way into Ephrem's work, which appears to be congenial with the narrative aggada.

As to the question with which this paper opened, I agree with Schäublin and others that the roots of the Antiochene method must be sought in the educational system of the late Hellenistic and imperial age. It can be argued, as Froehlich and Young do, that the Antiochene reac-tion against allegorism was the protest of rhetoric against the methods of the philosophical schools; Eusebius was, after all, known for his knowl-edge of rhetoric56. However, other factors also played a role.

Thus the fact that Ephrem's Commentary on Genesis displays the same attitude toward allegorism, although the genre of this work places him at some distance from the exegesis of the Greek grammarians and rhetors, gives food for thought. It may be argued that a more general aversion to the excesses of Origen's allegorizing methods was a catalyst in the reaction against allegorism. There may also be apologetic motives that were important for the situation in Antioch and Edessa: Dilthey, for example, suggests that allegorical interpretations could not be used in the defence against the gnostics57. In addition, it is not inconceivable that 55 A. Kamesar, Jerome, Greek Scholarship, and the Hebrew Bible. A Study of the

Quaestiones Hebraicae in Genesim (Oxford Classical Monographs; Oxford 1993) 126-175, 192-193.

" See Jerome's De Viris Inlustribus, section 91 (see note 27 above).

(20)

142 R.B. TER HAAR ROMENY

Christian exegetes borrowed some of their attitude towards the biblical text from Jewish scholars, but the extent of this influence remains to be determined. If it did exist, the Syriac-speaking world may have played a mediating role, though the Antiochenes did not adopt the latter's open-ness to the content of aggadic traditions.

(21)

PREFACE v

Esther ESHEL (Jerusalem)

Hermeneutical Approaches to Genesis in the Dead Sea Scrolls l Esther GLICKLER CHAZON (Jerusalem)

The Creation and Fall of Adam in the Dead Sea Scrolls . 13 Johannes TROMP (Leiden)

Literary and Exegetical Issues in the Story of Adam's Death and Burial (GLAE 31-42) 25 Albert VAN DER HEIDE (Leiden)

Midrash and Exegesis 43 Naomi KOLTUN-FROMM (New Orleans)

Aphrahat and the Rabbis on Noah's Righteousness in Light of the Jewish-Christian Polemic 57 Shlomo NAEH (Jerusalem)

Freedom and Celibacy: A Talmudic Variation on Tales of Temptation and Fall in Genesis and Its Syrian Background 73 Serge RUZER (Jerusalem)

Reflections of Genesis 1-2 in the Old Syriac Gospels . . 91 Lucas VAN ROMPAY (Leiden)

Antiochene Biblical Interpretation: Greek and Syriac . . 103 R.B. TER HAAR ROMENY (Leiden)

Eusebius of Emesa's Commentary on Genesis and the Ori-gins of the Antiochene School 125 Edward G. MATHEWS, Jr. (New York)

The Armenian Commentary on Genesis Attributed to Ephrem

the Syrian 143

J.J.S. WEITENBERG (Leiden)

Eusebius of Emesa and Armenian Translations . . . . 163 Judith FRISHMAN (Leiden)

Themes on Genesis 1-5 in Early East-Syrian Exegesis . . 171 Dirk KRUISHEER (Leiden)

Reconstructing Jacob of Edessa's Scholia 187 Corrie MOLENBERG (Utrecht)

ISo' bar Nun and ISo'dad of Merv on the Book of Genesis:

(22)

290 CONTENTS

Alison SALVESEN (Oxford)

Hexaplaric Readings in Iso'dacl of Merv's Commentary on Genesis 229 Kirsten STOFFREGEN PEDERSEN (Jerusalem)

The Amharic Andemta Commentary on the Abraham Sto-ries: Genesis 11:24-25:14 253

INDEXES

1. Hebrew Bible/Septuagint/Old Testament Peshitta . . . . 263 2. New Testament V ... 268 3. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 268 4. Dead Sea Scrolls . " ' . . . 270 5. Hellenistic Jewish Authors 270 6. Rabbinic and Medieval Jewish Authors and Works . . . . 271 7. Early and Medieval Christian Authors and Works (Arabic,