The Commentary: Its nature, structure, extent ofcoverage ofPsalter
+ Commentary on the Psalms usually he names as "the Septuagint;" for Psalm 49.4 he prefers the alternative reading "obscure saying" to his text's "riddle" on the grounds that "the Hebrew means that" — for him a risky venture into an area where he often gets his fingers burnt through ignorance; he compares alternative versions to his text of Psalm
116.11. We would have to conclude that the Commentary — and such a congregation — would suffer little from omission of all the variant readings, as becomes clear from commentary on psalms
109 et seq., where the preacher has largely tired of citing them.
Its NATURE, STRUCTURE, EXTENT OF COVERAGE OF THE PSALTER Itisa difficult, probably insoluble, problem determining whether the Commentary in its present form was delivered to a congregation (perhaps several) or not; the next section will grapple with the task more comprehensively." The evidence of the text is contradictory; we can only remark on features of a biblical commentary that at least imply a live audience — an implication strengthened by lack of any formal Introduction to the series such as we find in the commentary ofTheodoret of Cyr a half-century later." Firstly, there is the impression that (unlike Theodoret at his desk) a preacher is addressing a congregation in a teaching setting on an occasion that is paraliturgical, not eucharistic. Chrysostom begins his commen- | tary on Psalm 47 thus:
| All the nations, clap your hands (another version, 'hand'). 'Shout to God in a voice of happiness' (a different version says, 'Indicate in a voice of praise')... Some people may find the opening of the divine
Spirit's exhortation unworthy —such a bidding, applause, din, loud cries. These things do not become people assembling in this place dedicated to teaching (Sisaoxadseiov, didaskaleion), but rather those indulging in the theatre and banquets, shaking rattles and applauding.
* Cf my "Chrysostom's Commentary on the Psalms: homilies or tracts?"
Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church, Melbourne, 1998.
They are assembled, not in a church, but in a teaching setting (as befits psalms composed "to give guidance in knowledge of God"),"" where nevertheless noise (about which the preacher remarked in commenting on Psalms 8 and 44) is inappropriate." The didaskaleion "is more important than a courtroom," he claims with some smugness on Psalm 50.16, because it is not condemning but correcting.* That they are not eucharistic occasions is confirmed by a remark on a phrase in Psalm 49.2, "rich and poor together," that both are welcome: "Let our assembly be in common, the sermon in common, the listening in common." Had it been eucharistic, surely a preacher would have adverted to the particular koinonia of the occasion.™Psalm 116.13, "I shall take a cup of salvation, and | call upon the name of the Lord," evokes reference to chalice, sacrifice, thanksgiving, anamnesis—but no reference is made to eucharist as would surely have occurred had the occasion been eucharistic
(likewise on Psalm 145.15).
That opening to the commentary on Psalm 47 in the didaskaleion is typical also of the abrupt opening to most; there is none of the small talk, resumé, blandishments that mark the opening of, say, the Genesis homilies that so impressed Photius with their orality.
This is also a matter of genre, recording, and transmission to be dealt with below in Section 5. We might note that the extant texts of other patristic preachers, like Augustine's commentary on Psalm
* Cf note 18 on Psalm 136.
* On Psalm8 he also stresses the need of silence, as contrasted with the theatre, but speaks of the congregation as being "in church" (see note 5 there). It is possible there were different venues on different occasions.
* At the opening of commentary on Psalm 122, he seems (perhaps because of the psalm's content) to refer to the venue as "a house of prayer"
(etxnijguos otxos, eukterios oikos), a term still not suggesting a church, and applied shortly after in that commentary to the Jews' Temple. Chrysostom had used the term elsewhere in his works for an oratory, such as a martyr's chapel. iOn Psalm 50.18 he upbraids clergy (some possibly in the congregation) for not being more outspoken on public sinners, and urges the latter not _ be admitted to the "holy table" — as though at another liturgical function.
A century later in Constantinople the presbyter Leontius delivers some homilies within a eucharistic liturgy, others "during an evening liturgy which comprised readings from the Scriptures, singing of psalms and a homily" (P. Allen, C. Datema [edd.], Leontius, Presbyter of Constantinople.
Fourteen Homilies, Brisbane, 1991, 17).
+ Commentary on the Psalms 52, can reveal an equally blunt opening, though in this case the | African preacher admits he has a reader in mind as much asa listener® — something not admitted in Chrysostom's case.
At least early in the "series," Chrysostom would begin his commentary on a psalm with the title as found in his text, to which he adds variant versions. There is no suggestion he thought the psalm titles a later addition, as did his mentor Diodore and the moderns; in this he sided with most other patristic commentators.* So he fails, as does his LXX text, to see them as in many cases giving directions to musicians, not recognising names like Korah and Asaph as items in the lists of such artists occurring in The Chronicler." These failings led him and his LXX text to grapple with the Hebrew to find meaning in every phrase, a task for which they were ill-equipped; nor were they ready, as are modern scholars
(themselves not always clear about the musical direction being given), to admit ignorance of such terms as gittith in the title to Psalm 8 or muth labben in Psalm 9, so by questionable etymology they came up with terms about "winepresses" (gat) and "dying"
(muth). They were not able to recognise maskil as a psalm type, or "On the lilies" as a melody key, in Psalm 45. We are plunged into a lengthy disquisition on Psalm 5 about inheritances because the LXX had failed to read aright the similar Hebrew word in the title for "flutes," another musical direction. (Chrysostom is generally wise enough to be content with the LXX's d5udupadrya (diapsalma) for the direction selah in the body of Psalms 9 and 44, unclear also to modern scholars, for which a variant version offers "always.")*
% CFR. E. Heine, Gregory of Nyssa's Treatise on the Inscriptions on the Psalms (Oxford Early Christian Studies 10), Oxford, 1995, 3-5, It is noteworthy that towards the end of the collection Chrysostom omits the titles and in fact mention of David by name; possible reasons for this I have suggested in note 1 to Psalm 137.
* See note 1 to Psalm 50.
* The more deliberate Theodoret, who knows of the musicians listed by The Chronicler and is even prepared to allow authorship of some psalms to them, criticizes Aquila for using "always" and even inserting it into the text of the preceding verse. "I take the notation diapsalma to indicate an alteration of the melody," he says (PG 80,864). Chrysostom acccepts and gets mileage from Aquila's "always" in commenting on Psalm 140 (see its note 7) and Psalm 143 (note 47).
Once the preacher launched into his commentary, the congregation could expect the session to continue at length, sometimes at great length, as the time given to Psalms 4, 7, 45 indicates." Their own role is not spelled out clearly in this series, beyond the need for silence. Commentary on Psalm 44.12 suggests they did some singing; Chrysostom says, "The verse seems to be extremely unclear, yet pay attention so that your singing (1pa)Aewv, psallein) may be done with understanding" — an accent he repeats at the opening ofcommentary on Psalm 141,wherehe regrets that "those sing- | ing it daily and uttering the words by mouth do not enquire about | the force of the ideas underlying the words."*° From the text of that commentary on Psalm 42beyond this collection, which speaks of the congregation singing a responsorium or 01x01 (Itypakoe) ("As the stag longs...," in that familiar refrain) under the guidance of a leader, De Montfaucon generalises to see all psalms in this Commentary being treated likewise, on the analogy also of Athanasius' usage."' But Chrysostom, who finds the practice can have the effect of leaving the congregation ignorant of the psalm as a whole, begins commentary on Psalm 118 in a way that suggests singing of a Itypakoe, or "the verse for hypekesis," was reserved for eucharistic occasions and perhaps only at Easter:
Confess to the Lord that he is good, because his mercy is forever (v.1). The verse of the psalm which the congregation is accustomed to sing in response (/rypopsallein) is like this: This is the day the Lord has mude; let us rejoice and be glad in it (v.24). It rouses many people, and the congregation are accustomed to sing it in response to that spiritual assembly and on the heavenly festival... The Fathers prescribed the singing (bamyetv. hypechein) of that verse by the congregation... We, on the contrary, must address ourselves to the whole psalm."
~ Later in the "series" great length is rare, especially where an historical basis to a psalm is acknowledged.
~ A statement of the benefits of sung prayer arises out of comment on Psalm 135.3.
© While thus finding fault with the practice, he is happy to have them sing a refrain of his own choosing; when he comes to v.6 of this psalm, he remarks, "Let us not only sing this as a refrain (/rypopsallein) but also manifest it in our deeds." Yet there is no mention of that repeated antiphon in Psalm 136 being sung. On Psalm 145 he does speak of initiates (to sacramental reception) singing as an antiphon v.15 ("You give them their food in due season") but of his congregation reading the psalm.
% Commentary on the Psalms The congregation, then, listened and sang, even if not following the liturgical pattern.
Our present text shows the commentary on the psalm verses beginning quite directly, after possible comment on the title, but that is no guarantee of ordered and concise treatment. We noted the false lead in the title to Psalm 5 onto a discussion of inherit- | ances material and spiritual; at its completion the commentary
| proper proceeded with unholy haste. An historical reference in the title of Psalm 7 encouraged the commentator to deliver a long historical introduction on Hushai and Ahithophel from the Former
Prophets before proceeding, resulting in a very lengthy "session"
(hopefully the congregation was in fact seated during this hour or two). Other digressions involved polemic against the Jews in Psalm
8 and a joust with popular philosophy on Zeus and rainmaking in Psalm 4.7. Commentary on Psalm 44 meanders to great length;
Psalm 46 is unusually brief. Conclusion to a commentary can accordingly be well developed, with carefully articulated doxology
- or abrupt, lacking peroration, truncating or omitting the doxology completely (e.g., Psalms 4; 5; 109; 111; 147; 149), perhaps on occasions when two psalms were commented on together.
In short, one does not get the impression in this commentary of a scholar at his desk enjoying the leisure to control the development of the material; more like an impulsive preacher, often subject to pressure of time mismanaged.
Today's commentator on Chrysostom's text is at some difficulty in referring to "previous," "earlier" and "later" individual psalm commentaries for the reason already mentioned that we do not have from him treatment of the complete Psalter, nor can we be sure that the series once included it all and that he moved consistently from one psalm to the next.* De Montfaucon is convinced that the series was originally complete but later dispersed, that a *® Writing about the end of 404 to discourage Augustine from attempting a commentary on the Psalms, Jerome listed six Greek and three Latin commentators, among whom Chrysostom does not occur, though he admitted there were other "in paucos Psalmos opuscula" (Ep 112,20: PL 22,9289). Rondeau (Les commentaires patristiques, 128) finds Baur's argument on this basis against a complete commentary by Chrysostom "précaire." Evidence from the catenae suggests sequences of psalms to be missing, as in the extant collection.
"collector" is to be congratulated for reassembling all and only the extant commentaries (those on opening verses of Psalms 3 and 42, insofar as also authentic, being legitimate addenda to the collection), that completeness is suggested by the fact that the extant commentaries survive in blocks rather than at random, and that a genuine note by Photius found in a catena mentions the lacuna from Psalms 14 to 43 and discovery of part of Psalm 59." His trump card by way of internal evidence is the reference in the commentary on Psalm 141.4-7 to "what has already been said" on Psalm
63.2, a psalm no longer in the series; but against this one could raise Chrysostom's failure to remind his congregation of the verbatim similarity of verses in Psalm 144 to Psalm 18, which suggests the latter had not come in for commentary."
The internal evidence, at least on the matter of the sequence of extant commentaries, is rather more abundant than De Montfaucon cites, if also not without contradiction. Occasionally there is a suggestion of movement from one psalm in numerical order to the next. In commenting on Psalm 11.4-5 Chrysostom is correct in telling his congregation, "What we said in the previous psalm to indicate that wickedness itself is sufficient to destroy them he suggested here too," having made this point about Psalms 9.15 and 10.16-18
(the one psalm in his LXX text). He refers the (same?) congregation unequivocally to "the previous psalm" in course of comment on Psalms 140; 146; 147; 148; 150 (erroneously in this final case). After cross-references to other psalms in the course of commentary on Psalm 49.12, he asserts that the same topic (of forms of vice) occurs
"also in the present psalm" as though part of a wider series. Again, he opens commentary on Psalm 13 with the remark, "This too is no slight benefit, to get a sense of God's forgetting," a hint at his opening to the previous psalm, where he also began with mention of "fellowship and fraternal encouragement" as no slight benefit.
Such off-the-cuff connecting links in the chain of psalms can be more ambiguous. Chrysostom begins his commentary on Psalm
47 with the remark, "This psalm, too, has to do with the same subject," yet it is stylistically quite different from Psalm 46, fulsome
"It is also possible that commentary on Psalm 63.2 fell outside the larger series; see note 7 to Psalm 141.